House of Representatives
19 May 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1913

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question concerning a serious situation which has arisen in a community known as Mansfield Park within the division of Bonython. Some months ago five children were burned to death there. On Tuesday night the mother of two children was burned to death, bringing the total of deaths from fire to nine since 1956 in this ill-fated community occupying temporary housing units, some of which are faulty in construction and have electric wiring hazards. Has the South Australian Government made any representations to the Commonwealth for a special grant to provide housing urgently to replace this wretched and unsafe accommodation? If not, has the Treasurer, as chairman of the Australian Loan Council, received any request from the Premier of South Australia for a special loan allocation for this purpose?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I regret to learn of the tragic occurrence to which the honorable gentleman has referred. I am not aware of any special request by the Premier of South Australia. Of course, at the meetings of the Australian Loan Council, it is customary for premiers generally to press for a programme which we usually find involves a greater amount of money than can be raised by way of loan, supplemented from Commonwealth revenue. Last year, the total amount provided for the works and housing programmes of the States was £220,000,000. That figure was about £10,000,000 above the corresponding figure for the previous year and it was estimated to be £30,000,000 above the amount that the Commonwealth could expect to raise from its borrowings inside Australia and overseas. South Australia’s share of the total was just over £30,000,000, which was a little more than £1,000,000 in excess of the allocation made to South Australia in the previous year. I understand that of the £30,000,000 the sum of £5,000,000 was taken by the Premier of South Australia for housing advances this financial year. This was the same as. the amount taken in the previous year.

page 1913

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In asking the ActingPrime Minister and Minister for Trade a question, I refer to discussions by senior business executives at what may be called a National Export Convention, which appears to have just concluded in Canberra. Can the right honorable gentleman say whether the Government is giving due credit to manufacturers and their employees for the contribution they have made to the balance-of-payments situation by the savings in imports which they have made possible?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The Government attaches great importance to exports, as is indicated by its co-operation with the Export Development Council in the fostering of this great National Export Convention, which, I think, is the greatest aggregation of top-level business executives ever brought together in Australia to consult with the Government. In this export area, in which our interest is related ultimately to our balance-of-payments situation, we have not overlooked the equally important significance to be attached to the avoidance of the necessity to import. I pay tribute to the Australian manufacturing industries, which to-day employ about 1,200,000 of our work force, for the enormous contribution that they have made to the balanceofpayments situation by helping us to avoid the necessity to import. As importers of raw materials and components, manufacturers have themselves become among our greatest importers, and in the minds of Australian businessmen generally there is now clearly established a complementary relationship in this field of export earnings - a relationship between Australian manufacture and the need to earn overseas income. The Government clearly recognizes the balance there, and will co-operate equally with those who avoid the necessity for imports by manufacturing here and with those who earn export income for us by increasing exports.

page 1913

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTIONS

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will the right honorable gentleman, when framing the next Budget, consider including King Island in the area to which zonal tax concessions apply, because of its isolation and the resulting high freight rates and high cost of living, to say nothing of its adverse climatic conditions?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall examine the request which the honorable gentleman has made.

page 1914

QUESTION

STANDARDIZATION OF RAIL GAUGES

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport : Have there been any further recent developments in regard to proposals for the standardization of the railway gauge from Broken Hill to Port Pirie and Adelaide? Is it likely that there will be any developments on this important front during the coming parliamentary recess?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– I can advise the honorable member that during the recess, at the week-end after next, I shall be visiting Port Augusta, in the first place, for the Poinsett i a Carnival. By a fortunate coincidence, Sir Thomas Playford, the South Australian Premier, will be there at the same time. Since the purpose of our visit is partly to attend the Poinsettia Carnival, 1 feel that this summit conference will be quite amicable, because we shall be able to say it with flowers. It is my intention, after the conclusion of the carnival, to inspect the spur lines and the Peterborough section, and to travel from Port Augusta to Broken Hill. Knowing the honorable member’s interest in and personal knowledge of this matter, I am sure that he will be interested in the result of my inspection and talks with Sir Thomas Playford. I can assure him that they will represent one step forward towards a decision which, in the final analysis, because of the expenditure involved and the implications and importance of the scheme, must be regarded as a matter of policy.

page 1914

QUESTION

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.Is the right honorable gentleman in a position to give the House further information about the failure of the Summit talks? What action does the Australian Government propose to take in the United Nations or elsewhere to keep alive the questions that the Summit conference was supposed to discuss, such as world disarmament, the abandonment of nuclear tests and the like?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Yesterday, I gave an undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition and the House that, if I found myself able to do so, I would make a further statement on this matter. On the basis of the latest information, I have to say that really there is nothing new to report, because the whole incident - the breakdown of the Summit conference - has taken place in the open, and has been widely publicized. Therefore, we are really in the field of speculation when considering what were Mr. Khrushchev’s motives. Ostensibly, he has taken his stand on the ground of moral indignation because a United States reconnaissance flight took place over Soviet territory, and because of his failure to force the American President to apologise publicly and undertake, in Mr. Khrushchev’s words, “ to punish those who are responsible “.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the wide knowledge that exists of the Communist Soviet’s world-wide espionage activities - which I refer to not in accusatory terms at this moment but in factual terms - surely Mr. Khrushchev’s great indignation cannot really be taken at face value, and can scarcely be taken as itself explaining the extremity of his conduct. For myself, I can only believe that Mr. Khrushchev had, for reasons certainly not perceptible to me. simply decided before-hand not to go through with the Summit negotiations. With the whole question of world tension at issue, I cannot believe that all efforts to ease tension were set aside, if not wrecked, simply because Mr. Krushchev could not get a public apology from the American President. more especially as Mr. Eisenhower had, some days before said that reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory would be suspended. I remind the House that Mr. Khrushchev had said in Moscow on 12th May that the incident of the American reconnaissance flight would not be allowed to prevent the hold- ing of the conference.

The whole situation is now uncertain, andI will not say it is notdangerous. Mr.

Khrushchev’s present attitude, which is the reverse of that taken after he had knowledge of the reconnaissance flight, is so extraordinary that one cannot help relating it to the fact that communism does not produce a democracy, and that Mr. Khrushchev may have turned about simply because of pressures upon himself by competitive influences within his own country.

I think our attitude undoubtedly should be that which 1 am sure will be the attitude of our great friends - that although this conference has failed, the concept of the Summit conference is not inevitably destroyed. We are grievously disappointed. We can be sure that this break is not attributable to the West. It was Mr. Khrushchev who walked out and broke up the conference. 1 repeat that I will not conceal the dangers of the situation, and I certainly do not conceal the great disappointment of Australians; but if humanity is to have any hope for the future, we must not allow this incident to dictate our thinking completely, but must devote ourselves, with our great friends of the West, to the tedious and difficult process of endeavouring once again to bring the great leaders of the world round the same table to talk in good faith about the future, and for the future, of humanity.

I repeat what I said yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition immediately associated himself with that statement - that it is quite clear to this Parliament and this people that the well-being of the Australian nation is inevitably bound up with the safety and security of our friends of the Western world.

page 1915

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the PostmasterGeneral yet in a position to make a statement of Government policy on the allocation of radio frequencies and its effect on amateur operators as the result of the International Telecommunications Conference which was held in Geneva last year?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– On previous occasions, and again quite recently in this House, I indicated my intention first to present to Cabinet for its information and any necessary decision a summary of the recommendations flowing from the Geneva con ference regarding the frequencies available for amateur operators and, secondly, to submit to the Government a proposal that there should now be a complete investigation into the use of the frequencies which are available in the spectrum throughout Australia. I have now completed and submitted tho:e recommendations to Cabinet, and Cabinet has agreed that my proposal should be adopted and implemented. 1 may mention that this has happened only v.’.min me last day or so, and iliac this is the first opportunity 1 have had to make the fact known.

My recommendation was thai the proposals regarding amateurs, together with all the 0[ner problems that will arise as a result of the deliberations at the Geneva conference, should be investigated by an ad hoc committee which will be set up. 1’he committee will then submit its report to the Government, and the Government will decide what should be done. No action will be taken prior to the investigation and the submission of the report, lt is intended to give this committee wide representation. lt will be under the chairmanship of an independent person - not a departmental officer - and in addition to the departmental representatives who were previously on the frequency allocation sub-committee, there will be representatives of all those instrumentalities outside the department which also use the frequencies.

I intend to issue a press statement later which will embody briefly these decisions. I advise those honorable gentlemen, who have asked whether they can see the reports from the Geneva conference, that I have placed in the Library this morning what I may call an advance copy of the final acts of the conference. This document is not complete and is subject to correction, but it is a large document, and I have placed it in the Library for safe keeping and to be available to any one who desires to look at it.

page 1915

QUESTION

SECURITY SERVICE

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the AttorneyGeneral a question without notice. Will he, as the Minister who has declared himself to be responsible to Parliament for :he Australian Security Intelligence Organization, state precisely how his duty in this respect is to be discharged if he intends to refuse, as he has stated, to answer parliamentary questions or give information even of the most innocuous kind about the organization and its activities?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I suppose the honorable member realizes that the responsibility of a Minister does not involve him in answering questions. Whether he answers them is entirely a matter for himself. I shall not reveal matters relating to the security service which, in the interests of this country, ought not to be revealed.

page 1916

QUESTION

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the deliberate sabotaging of the Summit conference by the Russian leader, and the reasonable expectation that this is the prelude to another move in the cold war to weaken the position of the free world, will the right honorable gentleman give a firm assurance to Parliament before it goes into recess, and to the Australian people, that the Government will remain resolute in the face of this new threat to free men everywhere?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I think I can give that assurance without qualification.

page 1916

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been directed to the remarks made yesterday at the meeting of the State Housing Ministers by the Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, and the Victorian Minister for Housing, Mr. Petty, to the effect that the Commonwealth Bank cut off funds from the co-operative building societies as soon as they began to receive money under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, which resulted in their being no better off than they were before the agreement started? Will the Treasurer confer with the Commonwealth Bank with a view to inducing it to provide the same financial accommodation to the cooperative building societies as it did before the agreement was reached?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I have some recollection of this matter having been raised at an earlier point of time, and facts were then produced. I am drawing on my recollection in this regard and am subject to correction, but my recollection is that those facts showed that the Commonwealth Bank had not reduced the amount of its lending to the co-operative building societies. The report to which the honorable gentleman refers was not, from my reading of it, of general application, but was related to the Victorian situation. Whether in respect of Victoria - although the Commonwealth Bank’s provision overall was as great as if not greater than before - there was some reduction is a matter which I shall explore; but 1 repeat that by various means this Government - and that includes the instrumentalities which function under general Commonwealth Government auspices - is providing in the neighbourhood of £80,000,000 a year for housing in this country and that, no doubt, is one of the major factors contributing to what has become a record scale of domestic building construction in Australia at this time.

page 1916

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY FORCES

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army. Can he say what, if anything, was decided at his conference with Citizen Military Forces officers last week about the proposal to retain the name of the Tenth Battalion in the reorganization of the Citizen Military Forces?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This question was discussed at the conference. When I was in Adelaide recently representations were made to me by quite a number of people, and the matter has been pressed continually by the honorable member for Barker, in relation to the Tenth Battalion. As the honorable member will realize, it is necessary to have uniformity in the reorganization of the Army in relation to battalions, and this matter was very fully discussed, but unfortunately his proposal was not supported by any State other than South Australia. Therefore it would be very embarrassing and very difficult indeed to accede to the request of the Tenth Battalion in that State. I had hoped it would be possible; and I certainly think that a sufficient degree of unity had been achieved in South Australia to justify going very closely into the question. But, unfortunately, it would be quite impossible to agree to the request to retain the Tenth Battalion. Of course, the territorial significance will be retained in the battalion, but the regiment cannot bear the numeral “ 10 “.

page 1917

QUESTION

WAGES

Mr COURTNAY:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. During his forthcoming journey overseas, will he undertake to inquire into the manner in which wages and conditions of work and hours are arranged in European countries and America without recourse to the undemocratic, costly and humbugging processes associated with our Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and Industrial Court?

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think the methods of collective bargaining that are common in other parts of the world, particularly in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Western Germany, are very well known, not only to my department and myself but also to this House. I think the honorable member knows that 1 shall be away for only five weeks and that between seven and ten days of that time will be spent in Geneva. I do not think I shall have time, in those circumstances, to give very detailed study to this problem, but I can assure the honorable member that in such little time as I do have available I shall discuss it.

May I add that I hope that honorable members opposite will not persist in their attacks upon the arbitration system of this country. The Labour Party is becoming quite persistent in its attacks on the system, and is joining with another political group that seeks to bring arbitration in Australia into discredit.

page 1917

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. It was reported in an Australian Broadcasting Commission news broadcast last week that Mr. Monk, the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, said that his interstate executive had been assured by the federal secretary of the Seamen’s Union, Mr. Elliott, that an application to vary the seamen’s award would be lodged with the Commonwealth Industrial Registrar early this week. Can the Minister advise the House whether this application has been, lodged?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is perfectly truethat the federal secretary of the Seamen’sUnion did give an assurance to the interstate executive of the A.C.T.U. that, early this week, he would lodge an application for a variation of the seamen’s award. Until late last night, that application had not been lodged. I know that the interstate executive is confident that Mr. Elliott will live up to his undertaking. As Mr. Elliott is on trial, both as to his goodwill and the value of the assurances given by him to the trade union movement in Australia, I think it wise to say as little about this matter for the time being as is necessary, and so avoid any provocation upon which the seamen might hang attempts to delay further the settling of this costly dispute.

page 1917

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that a few months ago he made an announcement appealing for moderation in profit-taking. If this is so, will the right honorable gentleman inform the House whether the people concerned in profittaking have actually co-operated by reducing their profits?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– It would be quite impracticable for me to attempt to trace, over the whole range of Australian industry, the results which have occurred in particular companies. I think, however, that the figures for the last quarter, when there was the smallest movement for some time in the C series index, particularly with relation to manufactured items, can be taken as some evidence that manufacturers generally are trying to absorb increased cost* rather than to pass them on.

It is the objective of this Government to stimulate competition in Australia, because competition is undoubtedly a means of ensuring that the consumer will pay a price closer to a reasonable figure than would be the case in the kind of social and economic community that honorable members opposite advocate.

page 1917

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Labour and National

Service. A week or ten days ago, the Minister informed the House that he had referred the dispute involving the Waterside Workers Federation and the ban on Sunday work to Mr. Justice Ashburner for conferences. Have those conferences proceeded? What progress has been made? Is there a likelihood of the dispute being resolved in the near future and will there be any offering for work on the wharves on Sunday next or on Sundays in the future?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I did announce to the House about two weeks ago that, under section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I had referred the dispute in the waterside industry to Mr. Justice Ashburner. He had several conferences with the maritime unions and the other parties involved, and made recommendations to them. I think that subsequently there were negotiations between the owners and the unions, and there has been a large measure of agreement on the terms of the Ashburner recommendations. Most of these conferences have been between the parties, and, as far as I can make out, probably only one matter is now in dispute. That will be discussed before Mr. Justice Ashburner at a conference to-day. Naturally, I cannot forecast what the result of the conference will be, but I have some confidence that this problem will be happily settled to-day.

page 1918

QUESTION

GRANTS TO SERVICE PERSONNEL

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence: How far has the Allison committee proceeded with its report on the terminal grants that should be made to service personnel who will soon be prematurely discharged? When will the Government be able to announce a decision on the matter?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– I have not had any direct contact with Sir John Allison on this matter, but I understand that his committee has finished its discussions and is in the process now of preparing the report, which will be forwarded to me. When it is received, it will be considered.

page 1918

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question. On 15th March last, I asked a question relating to Commonwealth and State finances and the effect of the margins case on the Budgets of the States and the Commonwealth. At that time, the Treasurer was not in a position to reply. In view of the fact that the Supplementary Estimates have now been placed before the House, and as the Treasurer has had a much longer time to go into the figures, can he say whether it is correct that, as a result of the margins case, for the last six months of this financial year the Commonwealth Government will, in its Budget, show a profit of £7,000,000 whereas the State Budgets, taking them overall, will show an approximate loss of £12,000,000? If this is so, will the Government take it into account and do something to assist the States, because the compensating clause in the new formula does not operate until 1st July?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman quotes figures which are not in my mind, based on any advice that has been received by me. I do not know how any State, or for that matter the Commonwealth, could decide with precision at this stage what the cost of the margins decision is likely to be in this financial year. In the first place, we still have before the tribunal an aspect of the matter that is yet to be resolved. I shall not canvass the likely outcome of that application, but certainly we cannot say with precision where we stand until we have that decision. It may well be that some of the State governments are in a similar position. Where does one’s analysis of this matter stop? The increased incomes which some people have secured as a result of the margins decision have enabled them to do various things which have increased State revenues. They bet more on the races; they have bought more motor cars; they have done a variety of things; they have perhaps used transport services to a greater degree. Who is going to say precisely, until the financial year is ended and the results of the year are analysed. just how a particular government came out of the year’s transactions? I have no doubt that in the fullness of time we will have these answers. I also have no doubt that this Government acted generously, to the point of embarrassing its own finances, in the arrangement it made last year which was accepted unanimously by. State governments as a basis of a six-year arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States.

page 1919

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CALWELL:

– In the absence of the Minister for Supply, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will take some action immediately to try to save the ordnance factory at Bendigo where large-scale dismissals are threatened. Will he take up with the Minister for Shipping and Transport the question of providing additional work at the shipyard at Williamstown and also the subject of a programme for the naval dockyard there, in view of the danger of wholesale dismissals at Williamstown?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I fully understand the honorable member’s motive in raising these matters, and I will discuss with my two colleagues the points he has raised. There is really a dilemma for any government in office in dealing with the aftermath of war. It is easy enough to disperse the forces, but those who were engaged in industrial occupations as a result of the war and established themselves with their homes and families in certain locations, are entitled to the consideration of the country and of the Government. Yet, on the other hand, the community is entitled to ask whether we are justified in sustaining Government activities which are not really necessary beyond a certain point of public expense, merely to keep people in jobs. I am really very concerned over the problem. It affects my own electorate as well as the electorates in which the yards referred to by the honorable member are located. I will take the matter up with my colleagues.

page 1919

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTER FUND

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– As the Acting Prime Minister will no doubt recall, about three years ago I advocated in this House that a national disaster fund should be set up on a Commonwealth-State basis. Does the right honorable gentleman know that recently the Premier of Tasmania suggested such a fund and that similar suggestions have been made following floods, fires and other disasters? As it is too late after disaster to set up a fund and expect it to operate successfully, will the Acting Prime Minister cause investigations to be made with a view to ascertain ing the possibility of such a fund being established and its probable value to the nation?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I know that the honorable member is prompted in this matter because of his concern over disasters which have occurred in various parts of Australia and particularly because of a succession of incidents in his own electorate, following which he has been very active in his endeavours to secure ameliorating aid. The general concept of a national disaster fund, I know, has been sponsored by the honorable member for Mallee and also, on a variety of occasions, by various State Premiers. On the occasion of the last Premiers’ Conference this idea, which, if it were to be brought to reality, would be the concern of the States as well as of the Commonwealth, was examined and was found, on the judgment of the Premiers, to be impracticable, having regard to the level of contributions that would have to be made based on the experience of past disasters. I can only say to the honorable member that it would be appropriate at any stage for any one of the Premiers to raise this matter again at a Premiers’ Conference. Perhaps the Premier of Tasmania, who has most recently had sad experience of a disaster affecting his State, and who has already raised the matter, may elect to raise it again at a Premiers’ Conference.

page 1919

QUESTION

DARWIN HIGH SCHOOL

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Can the Minister for Works give the House any information about the construction of the Darwin High School, a project which was recently reported upon by the Public Works Committee? Have funds been provided for the construction of this school and, if so, when will building commence? I ask this question because of the need for the school which, I may add, was over five years ago declared to be an urgent educational requirement.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I agree with the honorable member that the need for this school is well established. The Government is considering certain details of the proposal, and I hope that a definite programme for the construction of the school will be announced shortly.

page 1920

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the ever-increasing need for trained agricultural scientists, and as the Australian National University is now being reorganized, will the right honorable gentleman discuss with the council of the university the establishment of a faculty of agricultural science at Canberra to cater for both under-graduate and post-graduate studies?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I concede immediately the ever-increasing need for trained agriculturists, and I will raise with the Prime Minister, on his return to Australia in a few weeks, the question whether it would be practical and appropriate to establish such a faculty at the Australian National University.

page 1920

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY FORCES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Last week, the Minister for the Army told me that the future role of two Tasmanian Army units - the 12th Infantry Battalion and the 6th Field Regiment - and other matters concerning the Tasmanian Command were to be considered at a conference of Army commanders to be held later that week. Can the Minister say whether these matters have now been further considered and, if they have, can he tell me what decision was made in respect of the units to which I have referred, as well as in respect of other matters relevant to the future administration of the Army in Tasmania?

Mr CRAMER:
LP

– I made a press statement yesterday about this matter, but I do not know whether any of it has been published in this morning’s newspapers. However, these matters were considered, and the same decisions that were made in relation to the Army in other States were made in relation to the Tasmania Command: That is to say, Tasmania retains a regiment under the royal title - the Royal Tasmanian Regiment - to which will be attached six companies. At the present moment ite strength permits of only two infantry companies, together with other units, to comprise the regiment. However, we have decided on something which will be of great benefit to Tasmania, I think; that is, the retention of the artillery which,

I understand, is certainly required. That, I think, is a good thing. We have also decided that as well as having a full colonel in charge of the regiment we will appoint a lieutenant-colonel. This will raise the status of the regiment. I sincerely hope that matters will work out for Tasmania, and 1 shall try to give all the assistance possible in this matter.

page 1920

QUESTION

CRAYFISH

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry indicate the results of the recent survey of crayfish in the southern waters of Western Australia? Are other fishery projects off the Western Australian coast under consideration? Will the Minister ensure that Western Australia participates in the benefits of the Fisheries Development Trust Account to the greatest possible extent?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I say first in answer to the latter part of the honorable member’s question that I think that Western Australia has had its fair share of the trust moneys that have been made available for research purposes. I hope, too, that that portion of the grant which is being spent on trawling in the Great Australian Bight will benefit Western Australia as well as the eastern States. I will ascertain the statistics of the crayfish industry and inform the honorable member of them.

page 1920

CUSTOMS HOUSE, MELBOURNE

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr FAIRHALL:
Paterson

.- As chairman of the Public Works Committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1960, I bring up the report relating to the following work: -

Construction of new Customs House at Melbourne, Victoria, and move -

That the report be printed.

The need for additional customs accommodation in Melbourne has been known to the Government and to the House for a long time. In 1957, a proposal was before the Public Works Committee that an annexe to the existing Customs House should be built on available ground at the rear of the present building. A recommendation against that proposal was made by the committee which also recommended the demolition of the present Customs House building and the utilization of that site for a new structure. At that time, for a variety of reasons which I think are well known to honorable members, the Government decided that the existing Customs House should not be demolished. However, evidence given in the inquiry established, first of all, the urgent need for further accommodation, and also the desirability of having the new customs house built in the locality of the existing Customs House.

In order to further this proposal, the Government gave consideration to the acquisition of the partly completed State Electricity Commission building in William-street, but satisfactory arrangements could not be made and that proposal was abandoned. The Government then purchased the new site at the corner of Flinders and William streets in Melbourne at a cost of £125,000, which figure was supported by taxation valuation. The present reference, therefore, is a completely new one.

Accepting the previous recommendation that the new building should be located as indicated, the committee sought new evidence on all aspects of the proposal. The present recommendation is for the construction of a “ high-rise “ building of sixteen stories which will meet the needs of the Customs Department in Melbourne for the next 25 years. The estimated cost of the project is £1,609,000. The operative words are “ the next 25 years “.

The evidence presented to the committee indicated that the Department of Customs in Melbourne was badly divided. It was operating in two or three locations with consequent inefficiency. The staff, numbering 456, will have to be brought together if reasonable efficiency is to be restored to customs administration. The estimated time for completion of the building is three years. It will accommodate 500 officers. It is estimated by the Customs Department and accepted by the Public Works Committee that, by 1985, it will be necessary to accommodate 845 officers. If the important objective of bringing the staff together now is accepted, it would be quite foolish to produce a new building which was adequate to meet only the requirements of the Customs Department at the estimated date of com pletion. This would clearly mean that when the staff exceeded 500 there would be need for extensions or we would be faced, once again, with the need for splitting the administration of the department. So, if the needs of the department for the next 25 years are to be met, it is quite clear that some section of the building now suggested must be surplus to the immediate requirements of the department. In fact, seven of the sixteen floors to be provided will be surplus to the present requirements of the department.

The committee gave a good deal of attention to the economic use of these additional floors until they are required by the Customs Department. We took considerable evidence from the Public Service Board and the Department of the Interior, both of which are concerned with the provision of accommodation for government departments. We were quite satisfied, on the evidence, that the use of this building as a staging centre for central administrations due to come to Canberra over the next fifteen or twenty years would occupy the seven floors economically. The floors would thus be occupied by departments which would be moved out progressively as they were transferred to Canberra, so making way for growing Customs Department demand. The committee is, therefore, wholeheartedly in support of this proposal as fulfilling the long-term needs of the department and making economic use of the space that will be provided.

The building will be of sixteen stories, reaching a height of 232 feet. The basement, ground floor and first floor will occupy the whole site and those floors will form a base on which will rise the fifteen other floors, including the mechanical equipment floors. It will be a tower type of structure, providing optimum natural light, and with modern internal and external finishes which have drawn praise from the Professor of Architecture at the University of Melbourne. The plan seemed perfectly satisfactory to the committee.

The gross floor area to be provided is 153,584 square feet and the useful floor area will be 1 13,560 square feet. The usual cafeteria services, now standard in government establishments, will be provided for 272 people. With the staggering of meal hours which is now quite acceptable, this will be adequate for the needs of the building. The building will contain the usual engineering services. The only ones worthy of special mention, I think, are mechanical ventilation and evaporative cooling. It was represented to the committee that, with a high building exposed to the wind in an area which is not completely soot or dust free, the cost of mechanical ventilation would be saved over a period of years by the diminished need for internal maintenance. The committee accepted that view and, as evaporative cooling added so little to the overall cost of mechanical ventilation, that provision, too, was desirable to provide maximum comfort for those days - not many but a significant number - in Melbourne when the temperature makes working conditions in a closed building uncomfortable.

The committee gave some thought to the question of providing off-street parking within the building but decided that the economics of such provision rather ruled against it, particularly as a considerable area of parking space has already been provided in nearby streets and in the area between Flinders-street and the Yarra River. The total cost including the cost of acquisition of the site is estimated at £1,734,000. I commend the report to the House for acceptance.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– I offer no strenuous opposition to the motion, but I am afraid that if this proposal is adopted the development of the great Commonwealth centre in Spring-street will be further delayed. I understand that, at the present time, the Commonwealth is paying about £300,000 a year in rent in Melbourne for office accommodation for various departments. As the centre, which is bounded by Spring-street, Exhibition-street, Lonsdalestreet and Latrobe-street, was purchased twelve years ago, it cannot be said that the present Government has rushed the development of the area. One block has been completed and all the installations such as water and heating are available for the second block. I think that the second block should have been commenced before this proposal was examined.

The honorable member for Paterson (Mr. Fairhall), who is chairman of the Public

Works Committee, has referred to the provision of parking sites at the proposed new Customs House in Melbourne. I think that when the King-street bridge is opened at the end of this year congestion in that area will be increased. Therefore, it would be far better if the Department of Customs and Excise could have been persuaded that its interests would have been just as well served by its occupancy of a section of the Commonwealth offices at the eastern end of the city as by the provision of a building at the western end of the city. I am aware of all the arguments about the convenience of shippers and exporters, and all the rest of it. But I can see a delay of another two or three years occurring before the second section of the Commonwealth centre is completed if the present proposal for a new Customs House is adopted by the Parliament, as it certainly will be, and is put into effect.

The Commonwealth is paying out huge sums of money by way of rent in all parts of Australia. In Sydney, a big centre is planned for a site which was purchased by the Chifley Government about the same time as the site of the Commonwealth centre in Melbourne was purchased. Development of the Sydney site is now about to proceed. It is true that there have been difficulties in the way of more rapid development of that site, but the delay in commencing the Sydney project has been greater than it should have been. I should like to see these Commonwealth centres constructed in every capital city as quickly as possible, because the Commonwealth will derive financial benefit if we can put all our public servants in each capital in a Commonwealth centre and thus avoid the payment of these huge amounts of rent which are going out and, unfortunately, will continue to go out for many years to come. With the lifting of rent control and all that sort of thing under State laws, the Commonwealth will be under pressure to pay even greater sums in rent, and this Win only aggravate the problem further.

T am glad, in one sense, that the proposed new Customs House building in Melbourne will be going up, but I should have preferred the original plan which was approved by the Menzies Government soon after it came into office to be adhered to instead of the present proposal being put forward now, because the current proposal will, for a period at any rate, hinder the orderly development of an important part of the City of Melbourne.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one brief comment on the matter dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). His interest in the development of the Commonwealth centre at Spring-street, in Melbourne, is well known.

Mr Ward:

– We all are interested in it.

Mr FREETH:

– That is right, and so is the Government. However, the Government is faced with very many problems in relation to this matter. I imagine that not only on this occasion, but also on the previous occasions on which the Public Works Committee has examined the proposal for a new Customs House in Melbourne, the committee has been made fully aware of the desirability of having Commonwealth offices located in one centre as far as possible. Indeed, the honorable member for Paterson (Mr. Fairhall), who is chairman of the committee, mentioned the very special problems associated with the location of the Customs House in Melbourne - problems which make the recommended site desirable.

The problem of Commonwealth offices generally is a vast one, Mr. Speaker. Not very long ago, I mentioned the great need for Commonwealth buildings all over Australia. Melbourne has its need, and we recognize it. We have completed the first stage of the Commonwealth offices there on a site which was acquired for the Commonwealth with a great deal of foresight, and I pay tribute to the previous administration for acquiring that site. We have started on the provision of a Commonwealth office building in Brisbane, and we have let tenders for the first stage of the Commonwealth offices in Sydney. Commonwealth offices have been completed in Perth, but as yet there are no final firm plans for a Commonwealth office building in Adelaide. All over Australia, there is great pressure for new Commonwealth buildings, but we have to consider our total resources, Sir. We have to consider, also, the pressures on the building industry in all parts of Australia. Furthermore, we must bear in mind the fact that, although in the long term it is economical for the Commonwealth to provide its own buildings, it can be argued that at any given point of time we achieve some cash economy while we occupy offices which are old and not up to date. That is not necessarily an economy in other respects, but it is a cash economy, because the rentals that we pay for old and antiquated offices are less than the amounts we should pay in interest and capital charges on new, modern, up-to-date buildings. That is, I admit, not a valid argument over a long term, and, in the interests of efficiency, it is one that cannot be sustained. But when we look at our cash problems, we have to consider that argument.

I give the Leader of the Opposition this assurance: We are endeavouring as far as possible to phase in the requirements for Commonwealth offices in all the capital cities of Australia, and the further stages of the Commonwealth centre in Springstreet, in Melbourne, will be attended to as soon as we are able to proceed with them.

Mr DEAN:
Robertson

.- Mr. Speaker, without commenting on or in any way adding to what the Minister for Works (Mr. Freeth) has just said in reply to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), may I add two things from the stand-point of the Public Works Committee for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition. I refer, first, to the selection of a site for the proposed new Customs House in Melbourne adjacent to the present site rather than deciding on the Commonwealth centre, in Spring-street. When the honorable gentleman reads the committee’s report, he will find that the committee gave a great deal of thought to this proposal, and that evidence was taken from a very wide range of witnesses. That evidence overwhelmingly favoured keeping the Customs House as close as possible to the location of the present building.

Secondly, I wish to deal with the need for parking space. This, also, was investigated by the committee, and considerable evidence on the matter was taken. On the evidence given, the committee is satisfied that very few of the clients of the Department of Customs and Excise who have occasion to go to the Customs House use private transport. Because the offices of the clients are mostly close to the proposed site for the new building, the clients will mainly use public transport or go to the building on foot, and it is considered that sufficient parking space is being provided for the few cars that it is thought will be used.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two in support of the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). Unfortunately, 1 have not had a chance to read the report of the Public Works Committee on the proposal for a new Customs House in Melbourne. I have no doubt that the report has been prepared only after the painstaking hearing of evidence, and I offer no criticism of that report. However, I want to say that, like the Leader of the Opposition, I feel that the chosen site is the wrong one in view of the changes that are taking place in Melbourne. I know that at this stage all or most of the customs agents would like the Customs House to remain in the locality of the present building, because the offices of most of the agents are somewhere near the old building. They chose their present offices because the existing building was nearby.

But I ask honorable members to take into account the fact that a new King-street bridge is being constructed with an overpass, and that, when it is opened, the traffic over the Queen-street bridge, which has a very much narrower roadway, will cause much more traffic congestion than ever before in the vicinity of the present Customs House. It is quite obvious that no customs agent will be able to afford to pay the rents that will be charged in that area in two or three years’ time once the King-street bridge has been- opened. Therefore, this site, which was ideal in the past, will not be ideal in the future owing to the developments that are taking place in Melbourne. I do not want to oppose the proposal in any way, but I do feel that we are taking evidence on the present and the past rather than looking to future development, and in that case I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it would be far better to put the building in the Spring-street area where it would be close to the proposed underground station. Any one travelling from the west end of Mel bourne would then be able to alight at a station practically right underneath the customs house, and the Commonwealth centre in Spring-street. As a matter of fact, one of the advantages of having the Commonwealth offices there is that anybody who has to visit them will simply travel by underground and alight nearby.

Mr Bryant:

– That is the most appropriate method of interviewing members of this Government - go underground.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– The honorable member can think as he will on that point. I remind honorable members that there is an underground railway already in Sydney. In the great cities of the world, persons who want to get anywhere quickly do not take a taxi or use a private car, but travel on the underground railway. Serious consideration is being given to an underground railway for Melbourne, and officers are working on the plans now. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been better to put the new Customs House at the top of Spring-street. No doubt, as values improve around the old Customs House site, the Government will be able to sell at a profit if it ever wants to erect a Customs House in the best situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1924

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).I have received a letter from the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of urgent public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely -

The necessity for the Commonwealth, in its own Territories, and the States with aid from and under the leadership of the Commonwealth, to undertake the transformation of the social conditions of people of aboriginal race by adopting policies designed to meet their differing needs and problems with particular reference to education, technical and trade training, property, assimilation, housing, employment as public servants, medical attack on disease and tribal needs.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– Since the time allotted to a member introducing a matter of urgent public importance expires before he gets round to stating remedies he has in mind, let me state at the outset that there are three categories of aboriginal people in need of Commonwealth and State action. The first are the people of pure aboriginal race living in the tribal state. They need a massive medical attack on leprosy, yaws, venereal disease, trachoma and malnutrition. They need a realistic survey of the food resources of their reserves. They need the development of water and food for the game on which they live. They need some guarantee of tenure of their reserve lands.

They are not the only aborigines who need such a guarantee. There are non-tribal natives on reserves in some of the States, too. The discovery of minerals or resources useful to the European usually leads to the shrinking or abolition of the reserves, whether they be reserves for fully tribalized aborigines or for de-tribalized aborigines. Secondly, there are the people of pure aboriginal race who are de-tribalized and are part of the European economy. They need adult, technical and trade training. The women need training in domestic arts. They need, in urban and semi-urban areas, a massive attack on their problem of housing. They need the assistance which will enable them to own land and work it; not merely the theoretical and legal right to own land which never becomes socially possible.

Finally, there are the people of mixed aboriginal and European race who are part of the European society of this continent - a depressed and under-privileged part. In both the Bateman report of 1948 published in Western Australia and the report published in the Brisbane “ Courier Mail “, of 3rd May, 1960- twelve years and 2,000 miles apart, the one written by a man commissioned by a State to survey the condition of aborigines and the other by a journalist - the conclusion is the same. The aborigines need protection from the exploitation of low wages and poor rations on stations, and they need a chance for training, a chance for the real education of their children in a social setting where they are accepted and where they can find work and apply their education. All these things depend on Commonwealth and State finance, and call for thought, time and planning on a much more extensive scale than ever before. That is the purpose in submitting this matter to the House.

All these things need to be done in the face of the fact that there is no real public opinion in Australia to demand them. There is practically no trade union vigilance or interest to protect the employed aboriginal. The vaunted Australian fair play always seems to stop abruptly short of the aborigines. Australians respect a Namatjira, an aboriginal who excels in football or cricket or one who can get to a university. In the United States of America, tens of thousands of negroes have been through universities. We have had one man and one woman of aboriginal race through Australian universities. They were active in our own fields of interest; but how are we to get respect for the inherent qualities of this people as a people, a people who could get a Jiving off a hard land and a people free of acquisitiveness.

That lack of acquisitiveness is part of the problem of getting an alert public opinion that will demand action; but in the absence of that public opinion, there is every reason why the governments of the Commonwealth and the States should act out of their own enlightenment. I have no doubt that European South Africans feel that in world affairs Dr. Verwoerd is their most important spokesman, but ideologically throughout Asia, the natives are the people heeded. We often believe that our Prime Minister is our most important spokesman, but in Asia this country is scrutinized for its attitude on colour and its treatment of the aborigines.

It is nearly ten years since, on 8th June, 1950, as a private member, the present Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) brought forward a motion calling for cooperation between the Federal and State Governments in measures for the social advancement as well as the protection of people of aboriginal race. In the course of his speech, he made two points of great force that I propose to quote. The first was with respect to the Commonwealth Constitution, and he said -

I shall attempt to establish as my first proposition, that the whole Australian community has a responsibility for their welfare. As the Australian Government is the only Government that can speak in the name of the whole community, it has a special obligation to ensure that the nation shall accept the responsibility. I know that the Australian Constitution leaves responsibility for aborigines with the State Governments, and that the direct legislative and administrative powers of the Commonwealth in respect of aborigines do not extend beyond Commonwealth territories. I do not propose to enter into a constitutional argument or to develop any novel thesis about the situation. Keeping to a practical political level, I merely ask the Commonwealth Parliament as the supreme voice of the Australian nation to ensure that, irrespective of where the constitutional powers lie, the practical task of the betterment of the conditions of the natives throughout the Commonwealth shall be undertaken.

Then, speaking no doubt from his experience as an Australian diplomat, the honorable member for Curtin - now the Minister for Territories - made this second point -

The Commonwealth Parliament is the custodian of the national reputation in the world at large. Our record of native administration will not stand scrutiny at the standard of our professions, publicly made in the forum of the world, of a high concern for human welfare. We should be condemned out of our own mouths if those professions were measured by the standard of native administration accepted in Australia to-day. When we enter into international discussions and raise our voice, as we should raise it, in defence of human rights and the protection of human welfare, our very words are mocked by the thousands of degraded and depressed people who crouch on rubbish heaps throughout the whole of this continent.

Those are the words of the honorable member for Curtin who became the Minister for Territories in the following year. In September, 1951, he called a native welfare conference with the object of bringing about closer State and Commonwealth co-operation. He reported to the House on this conference in October of that year. I have no intention of making any partisan statement on this matter, nor will I contend that the Minister has failed in his efforts in the Territories or in the grant of financial assistance to the States to bring about any advance in the conditions of the aborigines. There have been advances, and let me briefly pay tribute to them. I think it is still true to say that our words at international conferences are mocked by the conditions of the people of aboriginal race, but the advances of this decade, such as they have been, should be acknowledged.

It is a typical Australian vice not to make a massive root and branch attack on any problem. “ She’ll do “ or “ Near enough “ are expressions which enshrine the attitude leading to defective supply and equipment in war, or to the lack of a systematic medical, educational or sociological attack on the problems of the people who are wholly or partly of aboriginal race.

In his speech of 8th June, 1950, the honorable member for Curtin mentioned that the Government of Western Australia spent £70,000 on aboriginal welfare in a budget of £20,000,000. In the last financial year, largely as a result of Commonwealth action which owes something to the Minister’s own outlook, the native welfare department had an allocation of £591,020. This year the allocation will be £660,000. Even allowing for inflation, this is a marked increase in expenditure. In addition, State expenditure has been released from making payments of a social service nature to people of aboriginal race because of Commonwealth action in making available to them age and invalid pensions, child endowment, unemployment and sickness benefits and so on. The leprosarium at Derby which was established by the State Government, has effected total cures in many cases, thus providing some alleviation in the condition of those aborigines who will come in and submit themselves for treatment. But when all this is conceded, £660,000 is an inadequate annual allocation for a native welfare department which deals with 18,298 persons classified as aborigines, only 2,000 of whom are true nomads in the tribal state and 8,625 of whom are of mixed aboriginal and European race living in centres of European settlement, such as the metropolitan area of Perth, and in the Great Southern area.

I do not want to get into the great diversion which always attracts the minds of people in Western Australia - the question of citizen rights as a legal concept. Applications for citizenship and citizen rights, and the relationship of this to the right to drink alcohol seems to be one of the main centres of attention. It is insignificant, anyhow, even if you regard it as an important subject, in relation to the total number of aborigines. Over ten years, 1,308 such applications for citizen rights have been granted, 279 have been deferred, 60 have been withdrawn and 56 have been adjourned. But they affect only a small proportion of the people in Western Australia who are classified as being of aboriginal race.

There have been two recent flare-ups of publicity concerning aborigines in Western Australia. One was started by Mr. W. Grayden, M.L.A., of the State Parliament who was formerly the honorable member for Swan in this House. He alleged starvation of aborigines in the Warburton Range area, and reiterated his allegations in his book “ Adam and Atoms “. As a result of this State parliamentary uproar, a medical party led by Dr. W. S. Davidson, Deputy Commissioner of Public Health, went to the area. I shall read from his report because it shows, in spite of all the sincerity of the great work which he has done in relation to the aborigines, the double standard that we unconsciously have of what is adequate for Europeans and what is adequate for aborigines. The second flare-up of publicity related to the eviction of natives from Allahwah Grove, in Western Australia. It is a poor thing that allegations of starvation and the fact of evictions were the kind of episodes which brought this subject before public opinion.

The Davidson survey was designed as a follow-up of a previous trachoma survey which was made in 1954 by Professor Mann, an evaluation of the nutritional state of the natives, and to ascertain the prevalence of the disease among them. The area surveyed was restricted and no one can say how the natives in the region of Lake Disappointment, the Canning stock route and the Balgo area were faring because their needs were not surveyed. A number of surveys of this kind has been carried out. One such survey was conducted by Dr. J. I. Elphinstone. I want to make one comment. The people who conducted these surveys travelled in trucks and had certain kinds of equipment for testing for disease. When the trucks broke down the party could not travel further. However, if we really wanted to know what was going on we would use helicopters and similar means to reach the natives so that we could make a complete survey of their conditions. In his report Dr. Davidson said -

Yaws was shown to be present in 25 per cent, of cases in bloods so far examined for this disease . . . Trachoma was the only eye disease of importance. It was widespread throughout the area, some 77 per cent, of persons examined being infected. The seriousness of trachoma lies mainly in that it can result in blindness. This, however, isdue not so much to the trachoma but to the secondary infection that takes plaice on top of it. Thissecondary infection and blindness accounts for theserious view taken of trachoma in other countries. It also accounts for most of the blindness in our own Kimberleys. In the Warburtons, however. secondary infection is almost non-existent and trachoma is a relatively mild disease.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Chaney
Mr BEAZLEY:

– I thank the House. Dr. Davidson’s report continues -

Only three cases were found with severely impaired vision due to trachoma and they were able to walk around unaided. It is also of importance to note that the 13 cases of secondary infection that did exist were all at Laverton or around the missions. In other words, contact with white civilization may cause this relatively mild disease tobecome secondarily infected and cause much blindness as it has in other countries . . .

Treatment for yaws should not be required unless severe manifestations are present or the person isleaving the district as, here again, there is no immunity and re-infection takes place. Moreover, the disease is normally a mild one.

Dr. Davidson certainly is not an alarmist. I do not know how he would ascertain whether a native proposed to leave the district and needed treatment, but I do know that if we said that in one of our State schools only 25 per cent, of the children suffered from yaws - but not in a severe form - and 77 per cent, had trachoma - -but not of the kind which was likely to lead to secondary blindness - there would be very considerable alarm.

If you recognize that as a fact, you recognize that we have two standards in our minds; one of what we think should be done for Europeans and one of what we think should be done for aborigines. So. he does not particularly ask for any action; and he goes on to make a very strong point about the nutrition in the area. In some places, water has been put in for the animals upon which the aborigines live. In dealing with aborigines, we are dealing with the most difficult problem in this respect. Wherever a native people has developed a concept of land ownership, as in New Guinea, they can withstand conquest. You cannot just go in and take their land; but wherever they have lived in a hunting economy, as did the Red

Indians in North America, or the aborigines of northern Australia, it has been possible for conquest to take the land upon which they hunted, and to destroy the people. Had they evolved an agricultural economy, they could have withstood conquests; but in this area which is called a reserve - no one would say any aboriginal reserve in Australia is first-class country - Dr. Davidson mentions that there are means of adequate nutrition. Then he goes on to say -

Many natives, particularly the children, had purulent nasal discharges. Bacteriological examination of these discharges showed a variety of organisms, none of a very pathogenic nature.

And he says how in the mission stations that is not so. He says -

Native camps were indescribably filthy, every rudiment of sanitary science being ignored.

It would seem, therefore, that the natives in the bush have a more balanced diet and suffer from fewer infections than do those in close contact with white civilization. That is a great compliment to our policies. He says -

In spite of this, there is some irresistible attachment to centres of white man’s culture that leads more and ever more natives from being aristocrats in the seclusion of their own hunting grounds to graduate to a form of rudimentary education and a system of missions to become unempIoyables in the squalor of native camps in Laverton and Leonora.

I would remind the House that he is speaking of one restricted area. He continues -

This is not so much a fault of the education or missions but is due to a lack of agreement on the final function of the aboriginal in Australian society and the means to attain this function. Whatever course is adopted in educating him to play his role in Australian society, the lessons of this survey must be borne in mind. That is, his education must include instruction in such things as diet, hygiene and sanitation and a sense of responsibility for his own health, his family’s health and the health of the community; otherwise in his new environment he will become a prey to disease and a danger to others.

Dr. Davidson is recognizing the need for a total attack. Any members of this House who have had experience of teaching children of aboriginal or part-aboriginal race would know that when they come to the school age of six they are as fast as the European child at picking up all the fundamental skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, but at the age of eleven, or twelve, they realize that our society has no place for them and that this education - which is significant to the European child because he knows it will have application for him when he leaves school and that it is a real part of his life and not just something given as a custom - has not the same application to them. When the aboriginal child reaches the age of realizing that there is not going to be any application for his education - I am speaking of those in the great southern and the civilized areas of Australia - it ceases to have significance and he loses heart and spirit. What Dr. Davidson is asking for is a total attack and not merely the granting of some social services or some theoretical rights, but a recognition that for ages these people have been families with no ownership of homes and none of the accumulations which all of us have - no ownership of houses or property - and for definite action on the part of the Commonwealth and State Governments to establish those basic things, those economic resources which give them status and give significance to the social services such as education which we give them.

But, clearly, we could not go to an international conference and quote the Davidson report with any pride. What Dr. Davidson is really asking for is a total attack, and it is also a request for a revolution of attitude on our part - somehow to get Australians to take a pride in the aborigines and in their traditions, as the Filipinos take a pride in the aborigines of their country. I remember when an aboriginal woman, named Mrs. Tucker, went to the Philippines she was treated as a queen, but when she came to Canberra all we had in the “ Canberra Times “ were niggling letters debating whether she was entitled to be called a princess or not. The plain implication of the Davidson report is the need for massive attack. There is no section of the community more depressed than the 18,000 aborigines in Western Australia. It does not matter whom one speaks about in this House, whether it be the pensioners or the seamen’s union, whose grievances are occupying the attention of Australia-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member’s extended time has expired.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– The comparatively short time which can be allowed for this debate to-day should not be taken as indicating that the Government does not realize the seriousness of the problem or its importance to the Australian people. But I point out that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) is absent from Australia, and I think that a full-dress debate on this subject - which I personally would welcome - would be much better held when he can be here.

The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) began his speech by quoting a statement by the Minister for Territories, some ten years ago when he was a private member. That statement has a dramatic significance when considered against the Minister’s achievements in the only part of Australia for which this Government can be directly responsible, that is, the Northern Territory itself. The honorable member for Fremantle, to whom I give full credit for his sincerity and seriousness of purpose in raising this matter, then went on to what was essentially a discussion of the condition of the aborigines in Western Australia.

I intend, in this debate, to deal with what has been done by this Government and by its Minister for Territories in the Northern Territory - the only part of Australia in which this Government, under the Constitution, can exercise direct control or directly work for the improvement of the aboriginal people. The House knows very well that the Constitution expressly prohibits the Commonwealth from legislating on the conditions of aborigines in the States. And so, on behalf of the Minister for Territories, I welcome the sentiments which lie behind the honorable member’s remarks as evidence of the Opposition’s concern - and particularly of his own concern - about the welfare of our aboriginal people. Nevertheless, statements in sweeping terms such as those used in the notice proposing this subject for discussion as a matter of urgent public importance generally need putting into proper perspective. In the first place the honorable member suggests that this Government needs to become aware of the special problems of the aboriginal people. This, in itself, is a denial of the nine years of hard and enlightened work of the Minister for Territories in discharging his responsibilities and those of this Parliament in the Northern Territory, which is the only place, I repeat, where this Government can legislate for the welfare of the aboriginal people. Through his administration the Minister for Territories has given a lead to the States and to the whole Australian people; I think that the honorable member for Fremantle has not done justice to the achievements in that Territory during the nine years in which the Minister for Territories has occupied his portfolio.

Mr Beazley:

– I believe the advances in Western Australia also are due to him.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I thank the honorable member, on the Minister’s behalf, for that acknowledgment.

There will always be room for differences of opinion on the methods used, but no one could fairly conclude that the Government - or the Minister for Territories in particular - has lacked awareness of the problems of the aboriginal people or has failed to act vigorously towards an understanding of their needs.

The honorable member for Fremantle has called for a massive attack on this problem. If by “ a massive attack “ he means a sudden assault, the very nature of the problem precludes such an approach. From its nature, it is a slow business. It is a slow business to build up the physical facilities needed, mainly in remote places; it is a slow business to gather and train the staff who, if they are to succeed, must have a sense of vocation for their work. Above all, there is a limit to the rate at which social changes can be accepted and absorbed by the beneficiaries of these policies themselves. Social changes cannot be enforced upon aboriginal people quickly. The rate of change must be adjusted to the response that can be stimulated in the aboriginal people themselves. There is not time for me to develop this theme during this short debate, but it is very clearly explained in a small book, called “ Fringe Dwellers “, which was produced last year by the authority of the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) for the Aborigines Day Observance Committee.

The Minister for Territories has given the lead, particularly, and achieved a great deal on the fundamental issue of the removal of racial discrimination. Legal disabilities and protective legislation are unavoidable in caring for primitive people, but since 1957 no legal disability has been applied to aboriginals as such in the Northern Territory. Only those who, as individuals, are judged to need the care and assistance of the State are declared to be wards of the State. Under the law of the Territory, every one, whether of aboriginal or European race, is born a full citizen. Protective legislation is applied subsequently, where required, and then only on the basis of need, not of race.

The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) talked of double standards. If I understand the policy of the Minister for Territories at all, its underlying intent is to introduce a single standard for aboriginal and white people alike. He has made his first assault on that in connexion with this question of legal status. Every one born in the Northern Territory, whether of aboriginal or European descent, is born a full citizen. Protective legislation can be applied only to aborigines as individuals, if their state of development is such that they cannot get on without it. This advance has already meant that all partaboriginal people in the Northern Territory, and quite a number of full-blood aborigines, have the status of ordinary members of the community and are subject to its ordinary laws. This will become more significant as the number of aborigines able to accept the full responsibilities of citizenship grows. Very practical measures have been introduced to aid those who are declared to be wards. There are approximately 16,800 of them in the Territory. Excluding all expenditure on works, administrative staff salaries and health services, the money spent directly on the welfare of wards has increased from £53,400 - which was the amount spent under those headings in the financial year 1948-49- to £547,000 in the present finacial year. The significance of the year 1948-49 will be immediately obvious to honorable members opposite. This represents an increase of over 1,000 per cent. The staff of the Welfare Branch has grown from 72 to 288, and grants in aid to missions for work among wards have increased from £16,800 in 1948-49 to £255,000 this financial year. That is an even greater rate of increase than in the amount spent by the Government directly on welfare. There are now in the Territory thirteen government settlements and fourteen mission settlements, established as centres for aboriginal welfare work. Those figures, I hope, dispel, any suggestion of lack of awareness of the problem on the part of this Government,, and especially on the part of the Minister for Territories.

I should have liked to have time to deal in detail with the various headings of need mentioned in the honorable member’s urgency proposal. I shall deal with education. In 1948, the only schools for aboriginal children in the Territory were twelve mission schools. There are now 28 schools, of which twelve are on government settlements, two on cattle stations and fourteen at mission settlements. In 1948 there were 670 aboriginal children attending schools in the Northern Territory. There are now over 2,000 aboriginal children at school. Pre-school education is also being developed.

Attention has been given to technical and trade training. I have not the time to go into that now. Another matter mentioned in the motion is the property rights of aboriginals. As I pointed out, all partaboriginals and a large number of full-blood aboriginals have the same property rights as other citizens. Restrictions on rights of property apply only to those who are declared to be wards. In order to encourage the ward to learn the implications of the ownership of property, there is no control over the transfer of chattels of a value of less than £10.

Mr Beazley:

– It is not a question of legal rights; it is a question of how to get the property.

Mr OSBORNE:

– The first thing that must be done is to give people rights. They cannot be expected to grow to full citizenship unless they have a proper legal status first. I think one of the most significant achievements of the Minister for Territories is his success in tackling this problem of basic right of citizenship. All persons bom in the Northern Territory are born with full citizenship rights. Limitation is applied only at a later stage, and then only in individual cases.

The honorable member for Fremantle referred to assimilation. The only possible future for the very small minority of aboriginal people in Australia is to merge into and be received as full members of the European community which surrounds them. This is the basis of the Government’s policy, and all welfare measures in the Northern Territory have as their purpose the assistance of wards and their descendants in taking their place as members of the community of the Commonwealth. All special facilities - government settlements, special schools, wardship itself and the protective measures associated with it - are regarded as transitional measures which will be abandoned as soon as the need for them is past.

Housing was also mentioned by the honorable member for Fremantle. I point out that primitive people - I speak now of those elements of the aboriginal community which are in the early stage ot emerging from primitive society - have to be introduced to the use of houses slowly. On settlements and mission stations they are being provided first with simple dwellings. The Wards Employment Ordinance prescribes minimum standards for the accommodation that has to be provided for them when in employment. Houses are not always properly used, but that is only to be expected in the process of developing these people to the stage where they can take their places as full members of the Australian community.

Employment as public servants has also been mentioned by the honorable member. There is no bar to the employment of aboriginal people in the Public Service on work which they can do and for which they are qualified. In fact, a large number of wards, and many part-coloured persons, are already employed by departments on work suited to their capabilities.

The honorable member’s proposal mentions medical attack on diseases in the Territory. Most striking advances can be demonstrated in that sphere. I submit that the hillier birthrate and the dramatically lower death rate achieved in recent years are the best demonstrations of the success of our medical policy. I repeat that I should have liked time to deal with, in greater detail, the other headings mentioned by the honorable member. He has spoken of the tribal needs of aboriginals. Very few aboriginals in the Northern Territory are still living in a completely tribal state. It does seem to me that one of the most striking features of the impingement of our civilization on people in the completely tribal state is the fact that immediately contact is established, the tribal relationship begins to deteriorate very rapidly, and nothing can stop this process. As soon as any contact is established between the aboriginal in his tribal state and the Australian community, the problem immediately becomes one of preparing, and helping, the primitive man for the inevitably closer contact he will have with the strange complexities of our civilization.

The honorable member for Fremantle mentioned financial aid and raised constitutional issues. [Extension of time granted.] He raised the whole question of the financial relations, of the Commonwealth and the States. It would be pointless to go into these arrangements here, except to say that it is not practical for the Commonwealth to make direct grants in aid for the aborigines, and I doubt whether such grants would be accepted by the States.

I believe that I have, in the short time allowed to me, given some account of the remarkable progress in the Northern Territory during the last ten years, and particularly during the last nine years. This progress is the result of the labours of many, but above all it stands to the credit of the man who has been Minister for Territories since 1951. He has enunciated very clearly and carried into effect the policy of assimilation for the aborigines. He has done this with understanding, with vision and with energy. He has brought to the task a deep personal interest and a knowledge which is the result of a long study of the problems of native administration in this country. I think his own words can best speak for his work. At the opening of the Northern Territory Legislative Council quite recently, he said this -

The responsibility for the advancement of the aborigines lies on all Australians and the conscience of Australia to-day ha3 been aroused. The Australian Government - and I believe the vast majority of the Australian people - want this job done and done well, and they are paying to have it done. So far as I am concerned, I don’t aci because of international opinion or because of any appeal to declarations of human rights. The foundations of my policy are in Australian traditions and Australian social ideals. This is a land where we Australians have tried to build a better life for all - the land of the fair go - and as an Australian I think a “ fair go “ covers everybody within our borders, black or white. Australia is a Christian land and the Christian teaching does not stop short of any suburb, any camp, any district, or any group of people.

I think these words of the Minister for Territories might very well conclude what I have to say in this debate. He went on -

There may be room for discussion about the best methods but surely there can be no debate about the objective. If ever we should enter into dispute about method I would ask that none of us will ever lose sight for a moment of the fact that there is a single purpose to help these people, to receive them into the community and to give them every chance to live in the full dignity and worth of their own personality.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- As unfortunately always happens, when we raise a subject such as this, the Government regards it as an attack and proceeds to concentrate its attention on answering such an attack. I cannot, in the few minutes at my disposal, deal with all the statements of the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) about developments in the Northern Territory, but I can say one or two things. In the first instance, I admit that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck), has made a contribution to this matter. I do not suppose that any one in a government position has done as much as he has, but that applies only to some sections of the work that must be done in the Northern Territory. However, in raising this matter, we ask the Government to accept national leadership. If this is a national parliament and a national government, we should accept national leadership in this matter just as we accept such a position in making grants to the States for universities and other matters.

I shall answer briefly some of the points that have been raised about the Northern Territory. The legislation applied to aborigines in the Northern Territory is race legislation. Although the words “ aboriginal “ and “ native “ have been removed from the books, all full-blood aborigines were declared to be wards. Some twelve or fifteen of them achieved citizenship, but an appeal tribunal was supposed to be set up so that aborigines could appeal to the Government.

Mr Osborne:

– You are wrong In your facts.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am right. I have looked into this matter and I have asked questions on notice. In this instance, I think 1 know what I am talking about. The facts are that the administrative organization has not been set up so that the aborigines can exercise their right of appeal. No effort has been made to do so. The aborigines were not regarded as citizens and the merits of each case were not judged individually. The aborigines were declared to be wards because they were full-blood aborigines. I admit that one great advance has been made in the Northern Territory, by the granting of full citizenship to every one with European blood in his veins, and this is a lesson to those States which still insist on exemption certificates. However, the administration in the Northern Territory is based upon a racial attitude and not upon an individual attitude. Here, this nation of 10,000,000, with all its resources and administrative knowledge, is faced with the simple problem of dealing with some 75,000 individuals who are of aboriginal descent. Of them, some 16,000 are in the Northern Territory. What we ask is that every one of those 16,000 be regarded as individual human beings - as people and not as aborigines. That is why we ask that this matter be looked at on the administrative level.

That is only one of the points raised by the Minister. I understand, of course, that he is putting a brief for a Minister who is not here to do the job himself. But look at the employment ordinance. Aborigines do not get the full wages paid to other employees. Look at the housing ordinance. I could take honorable members to a station that has entertained the Governor-General. At this station, the aborigines live out of sight around the corner, on the banks of the river, in humpies. This, of course, is the status of the aborigine all over Australia. His home is the bark hut, the hessian humpy, the corrugated iron lean-to. They are the marks of the aboriginal people in the community from one end of the continent to the other. The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) raised this subject so that the status of aborigines could be raised by a national attack, and a national attack that started forthwith. It is all very well for us to wring our hands about the people of South Africa; but we should see to it that we do not neglect the hundreds of aboriginal children who will shiver on the banks of rivers this winter because they have no adequate shelter.

The honorable member for Fremantle put the case in a very fine and persuasive manner. It is perhaps unfortunate that more honorable members are not present to listen to us. The Commonwealth Government should take the initiative; it has the resources to do so. On several occasions it seemed that it intended to do so. When the Minister for Territories took over the portfolio some nine years ago, he convened two conferences. One was in 1951, I think, and the other in 1952. This was in the first flush of his enthusiasm, when he tried to establish some national policy. But no conferences have since been held, and they must be held and held forthwith. A recommendation was made some years ago that a national committee be set up to inquire into the health of aborigines, but nothing has been done. The answers to questions asked by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), show that that is so.

Only the Commonwealth Government has the resources to deal with this matter. Those who move around the Commonwealth can see what is happening. A visit to the leprosarium at Derby, followed by a visit to the leprosarium at Darwin, will show how inadequate are the resources that the Western Australian Government can place at the disposal of these people when compared with the resources made available by the Commonwealth at Darwin. The structure of the building, the equipment and the medical services provided by the Commonwealth at Darwin are much better than those at Derby. The Commonwealth Government has the resources to do the job and it has the initiative. It is, of course, the only authority in Australia in a position to do so, and it must commence action immediately.

The Minister said that this is a slow process. I remind him that we have been here for 172 years. How much longer will it take before we do something? I could take honorable members to girls who come from the fringes of towns, as mentioned in the book “ Fringe Dwellers “. I could take them to a hostel in Melbourne where these girls are living under conditions similar to our own. They go to work, earn money, pay their board and grow up as decent citizens. I know, personally, of examples in various parts of Australia where aborigines, either by good fortune, or as the result of good planning, have been brought into the circle of our way of life. One generation ago their parents were depressed or primitive. Now they have been housed, side by side with white people all over the country.

There is no point in the argument that this question cannot be attacked forthwith, and the Commonwealth can do it. The most desperate emergency is in the field of housing, and surely this is one field in which the Commonwealth can take steps without prejudice to its constitutional position or anything else. Already the Commonwealth has played an active part with regard to housing. In Victoria, the wealthiest State, and one which ought to have the most resources at its disposal, the aboriginal question is of smaller proportions than anywhere else because the number of aborigines there is the lowest in any State. In the last report of the Aborigines Welfare Board of Victoria for the year ended 30th June, 1959, this statement appears with regard to housing -

The most urgent task facing the Board was improvement of shack housing of many aboriginal families throughout the State which has been adequately described in the Board’s last report.

Unfortunately, the double standard of which my friend, the honorable member for Fremantle, has spoken is in evidence in Victoria. The 22 houses built for the aborigines are not of the same standard as those for white people. Amounts of only £1,200 and £1,500 capital have been invested in each of these homes whereas for white people the sum is often £3,000 or £4,000. Some people might say that the aborigines are not trained to appreciate the better type of housing and might knock them about, but the time has come for us to recognize that it is better to mend broken windows than attempt to salvage broken lives and broken hearts.

But this sort of differentiation is seen in many parts of Australia. Finance is always the reason given for inability to provide housing. I point out that £1,000,000 spent in Victoria would almost solve the housing question for the Victorian Government. We say that this is a Commonwealth matter, and after all, £1,000,000 represents only two-fifths of the cost of a Boeing 707. Surely in this country there should not be any racial or social discrimination against the Australian aboriginal. One has only to consider the question in Queensland where the aborigines have no rights, or if any are conferred upon them they are of a tentative and tenuous nature. One thing we should guard against is that the beneficiaries of native welfare legislation should not have to surrender any rights. People who are beneficiaries under the Repatriation Act do not have to surrender any rights to become and continue to be beneficiaries. If an aboriginal moves on to a station and becomes a beneficiary under a welfare ordinance or regulation, surely he should not have to surrender his rights, as happens in Queensland, including the right to vote. Aborigines should not be deprived of the rights of ordinary citizens.

All over Australia, except in Victoria and Tasmania, the aboriginal is expected to carry exemption certificates. I know that citizenship is an abstract question, but we have reached a state of affairs where we are citizens of Australia under the Nationality and Citizenship Act but they are not citizens of the States in which they live.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

– I compliment the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) on his desire to do something for the aborigines of Australia. I noted that in his speech his criticisms were directed mostly to matters outside the ambit of the Federal Government. We will not make a very important advance in the welfare of the aboriginal until we have some universal authority throughout the States to care for the aboriginal population, particularly where it is dense as in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I know that there are constitutional difficulties in this matter, and I understand that not all the States are favorably disposed towards the idea that the Commonwealth should be given overall authority in this respect. However, until that is brought about, I do not see that we can make much advance.

Mr Uren:

– The Commonwealth should make the requisite money available.

Mr BARNES:

– Nevertheless, until the States agree to the establishment of overall authority, we will not be able to overcome most of the trouble. The burden of the remarks of the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) was that if housing and other material problems were overcome, the principal problems of the aboriginal would be solved. One of the most difficult problems that we have to face in Australia is not citizenship rights, or housing or medical care but one of psychology. We are dealing with a race which within the last 100 years in the more populous States, and within only the last few years in the Northern Territory, have been taken from their primitive conditions of existence. Their inherent characteristics render them completely unfitted to be assimilated rapidly in our society.

I express very great admiration for the work done by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). Undoubtedly, since he has held this portfolio the greatest advance has been made in the welfare of native people in Australia. As the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) has mentioned, the obvious ultimate goal is assimilation. There is no other. We cannot have the aborigines as a separate people. We cannot have apartheid here as it exists in South Africa. But there are many problems. First, we have to look at some of the factors and the inherent qualities of the aboriginal people which would help them to share our way of life. I think we all agree, particularly those who have had experience of Australian aborigines, that they are probably the kindliest and gentlest people in the world. They have not that aggressive nature which most other native races possess, simply because they have been protected by geography from the more aggressive and virile races. They have existed in this dry continent as a nomadic, hunting race. They have been brought up to observe complex tribal laws which have inculcated in them a high degree of morality. These laws have been enforced in a very severe manner; in fact, any infringement of them usually means death. But unfortunately, the impact of the white man has broken down their code of living and we have not so far been able to provide an adequate substitute for it.

I agree with the suggestion of the honorable member for Wills about assimilating the aborigines. He illustrated his suggestion by referring to conditions under which aborigines live on the outskirts of Melbourne. This is one important means whereby we can improve these people. In the far north of Queensland where is found the main section of the aboriginal population, there is a very small white population. In all communities all over the world - and this is not unique to Australia - where there are racial differences there are racial antagonisms. Now, if we are to help the aboriginal up there to become assimilated we have to change the attitude of the white people, though I think that that would be nearly impossible. There is one way out, and it is not an easy one - that is, the education of the black children. Naturally we cannot take the black children away from their parents, because the aborigines have very strong family attachments. But there are many orphans and wards who could be brought south and educated there, as some other aboriginal children are educated now. They are brought up in communities where there is no racial antagonism. The important thing is that, being brought up in communities where there is no racial antagonism, their confidence is built up and they acquire dignity and self-respect. That is most important, because we shattered the dignity and the self-respect of the aborigines when we destroyed their tribal laws. This is a most difficult problem. I have not seen or heard this expressly stated, but it is my impression that it is the policy of the Commonwealth Government that, if possible, orphans and wards be brought south and reared in communities where there is no racial antagonism.

I should like to suggest several avenues for the useful employment of aborigines. The native women make excellent nurses and have a great love of children. They would be very useful as school teachers. The men are really expert horsemen and cattlemen and, employed in those capacities, they would at least be living a life to which they have been used. They would be under the blue sky and the stars. I know from long experience that the aboriginal, if well looked after on a station, is a very happy individual.

I think that there is a very good pattern of racial assimilation in South America. When the Spaniards conquered the aborina people there the problem of assimilation arose. In the northern part of South America people of the white race are small in number, whilst the indigenous Indian population is high. In the south, where climatic conditions and other factors are suitable, people of the white race outnumber the Indians. The Indians in the south have been assimilated, and are very useful people. I do not think that there is any racial antagonism there. When we consider the expertness and the value of the gaucho horseman on the pampas we can realize that there are great possibilities in our northern areas for giving the aborigines opportunities to earn their living, take their part in community life and develop our community.

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) agreed to -

That the business of the day be called on.

page 1935

MARRIAGE BILL 1960

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act relating to marriage.

page 1935

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1960

In committee: Consideration resumed from 18th May (vide page 1910).

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Parts).

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– This clause deals with the system under which proposals to establish television stations are submitted to the examining authority, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The point I wish to make is that practically all the proposals at present under examination by that authority are for commercial stations, whose activities will be financed by revenue from advertising. That means that these stations will be established in fairly big centres of population. The board is now dealing with the third phase of the establishment of television stations in this country. The first phase dealt with the establishment of television stations in Sydney and Melbourne, and the second phase with the establishment of stations in the other capital cities.

Now, in phase three, the board is dealing with the establishment of stations in large centres of population outside the capital cities, lt seems that it will be a considerable time before the board reaches its decisions about the issue of television station licences for these places, and then it will be quite a long time thereafter before the interests concerned are able to establish their stations and commence transmissions. During the whole of this period, and before there can be any further examination, something like 30 or 40 per cent, of the people of Australia will still be without a television service. I suggest, therefore, that during this period, or immediately - and this does not require any submission to be made to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board - the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) should get his scientific and technical officers to look into the matter of where government stations should be constructed. It seems to me that these stations should be erected in places other than those in which there will be commercial stations, because this would permit the establishment of stations in extraordinarily good sites. Such a site, a television station on which could serve southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, is Mount Bunya, which rises 3,000 or 4,000 feet above the plain in southwest Queensland. A government station there would be able to serve a tremendous area.

There is also Mount Kaputar, at Gunnedah, which is just on 4,000 feet high, and can be seen from any point in the northwest of New South Wales. Then there are Ben Lomond and Mount Mitchell, on the New England tableland, as well as Mount Lookout and Mount Hammond, on the Dorrigo, and Guy Fawkes plateau. Those mountains are over a mile high, and a station or stations there would be able to give great pleasure to people of outback areas where it is not likely that there will be, for many years to come, a commercial service giving the people all the amenities that come with this great invention.

During the period of the rise and development of broadcasting it was found, so rapid was the scientific development of broadcasting, that legislation seemed to become out of date in about two years. I am sure that the same thing will apply to the present legislation. I have no objection to the present bill. I am dealing with something to which the PostmasterGeneral’s Department should give attention during this third phase of television. The Minister should be able to do something definite along the lines that I am suggesting.

When this Parliament dealt with legislation in 1932 to deal with broadcasting, the position of the people outback was recognized in that the listener’s fee for outback areas was fixed at about half the cost of the listener’s fee for people in the big centres. The fee is 55s. a year for listeners living within 250 miles of a government radio station, and 28s. for listeners living outside that radius. Similarly, a reduction is made for pensioners.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

Mr. Chairman, before the suspension of the sitting I was inviting attention to the similarity between the position of broadcasting 30 years ago and the position of television to-day. About 30 years ago it was found necessary to discriminate between various broadcasting areas and to have different licence rates. The relevant act provided -

For the purpose of the grant of broadcast listeners’ licences and the payment of fees for those licences, Australia is divided into two zones. Zone 1 includes all places within an approximate radius of 250 miles of national broadcasting stations and zone 2 the remainder of the Commonwealth outside zone 1.

With the development of television in the three phases proposed by the Government, about 60 per cent, of the people of Australia will be able to receive television within the next four or five years and the others may be able to receive it within ten years. Therefore I urge the Minister to institute research in order to ascertain whether Government stations should be situated on the high elevations that I have mentioned. There are many other such elevations throughout the length and breadth of Australia. By accepting this suggestion the Minister could bring the benefits and pleasures of television to the whole of the people of Australia instead of bringing them only to a favoured portion.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Interpretation).

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

– Clause 4 reads as follows: -

Section four of the principal act is amended - (a) by adding at the end of the definition of “ broadcast receiver “ in sub-section (1.) the words”, and includes a loud speaker or other receiving device that is connected to such an appliance ; “

I take it that that definition is intended to cover hotels and lodging houses which have a loudspeaker in every room. However, I understand that modern radiograms have high fidelity or stereophonic sound systems which require the use of more than one loudspeaker connected to the one machine. I assume that this will very shortly be the case with radios as well. What will be the result if we provide in this bill that for each loudspeaker connected to a radio the owner has to take out a separate licence? I again suggest to the Minister that hotels could be charged on a pro rata basis instead of being required to have a separate licence for each appliance in each room of the hotel.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- I would like to point out that if a television set is installed in each room of a hotel the viewer has the right of selecting a programme. But if, as mentioned by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), there is merely a broadcast through loudspeakers in each room an occupant cannot select his programme. It is the right to select a programme, I suggest, that is the real point of this clause. If a person has that right, then the fee is charged. No doubt the owner of a hotel would see that the cost of providing television sets in the rooms was added to the tariff. Such costs are always added to the tariff. I understand that now in certain hotels an additional amount per day has to be paid for a radio receiver in a room.

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– I shall reply briefly to the points made by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes). The intention in this clause is to regularize the position in regard to television receivers and broadcast receivers in hotel and lodging house rooms. The Government feels that it is proper that this should be done because those who supply these services certainly see that they are properly recouped for them, and we feel that the charge of £5 a year is not too much. This provision will apply to loudspeakers which are connected to a master set for the purpose of transmitting a broadcast. It will not apply, however, to loudspeakers which are part of public address systems in the lounges and corridors of hotels. These can be and will be exempted by regulation just as at present those in public hospitals and other institutions are exempted. So I think that there is no reason to object to these proposals. Under the present act, fees are payable in respect of loudspeakers in hotel rooms but we have not been collecting them.

A question has been asked about reception of broadcasts through earphones in hospitals. Such equipment will not be affected by this bill because we can deal with it under the regulations.

Mr Thompson:

– Will this make any alteration to the present system under which a person may have two or three wireless sets in his own home for the one fee?

Mr DAVIDSON:

– Not at all. The provision under which, in a private home or anywhere else, a person can have a number of wireless sets or television sets for the payment of one licence-fee is not affected.

Mr Thompson:

– It does not affect extensions?

Mr DAVIDSON:

– No.’ You will see in the act that the bill applies only to lodging houses, as defined, and to those who hire sets out as a business proposition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Constitution of Board).

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Mr. Chairman, I refer to clause 5, which reads -

Section eight of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (4.).

Sub-section (4.) of section 8 provides -

A member, other than a part-time member, shall not engage in any paid employment outside the duties of his office.

What I want the Minister to explain is why this sub-section is to be removed from the principal act. Section 9 of the act provides that each member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years, and some of the members are part-time members. I want the Minister to tell me what remuneration is paid to each of the members of the board and why he has seen fit to allow a full-time member to engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office. A full-time member of the Public Service, normally, is not allowed to engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office. Why is a different attitude being adopted towards members of the Broadcasting Control Board in this instance? Is it because their remuneration is not considered sufficient and because it is felt that they should be able to obtain income from outside interests? If this is not the reason, what is the reason?

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– The purpose of the proposal, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall not be completely debarred from taking some outside employment. The purpose is not to ensure that they may engage in any sort of employment which would affect them in the discharge of the duties of their office. The members of the board are not exceptionally well paid. I am not certain what their remuneration is, but I think it is about £4,000 a year. They are pretty competent men, and occasionally there comes along a job which they could do with advantage to the board. That is why it is provided, elsewhere in the bill, that, with the approval of the Minister, members of the board may have some slight relief from the restrictions at present imposed in the act, which provides that if members of the board engage in paid employment outside the duties of their office they automatically vacate their office. After the passage of this bill, they will still vacate their office if they take outside employment without the approval of the Minister. I think that the proposal contained in this measure represents a desirable loosening of the provisions of the principal act without making them so loose as to permit members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to undertake outside employment which would be prejudicial to the discharge of their duties as members of the board.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- I also should like a little clarification of the purpose of clause 5, which will omit subsection (4.) of section eight of the principal act. With respect to members of the Aus tralian Broadcasting Control Board, that sub-section provides -

A member, other than a part-time member, shall not engage in any paid employment outside the duties of his office.

The honorable member for Lang (Mr.

Stewart), quite rightly, questions this clause. At first glance, it would appear to make it possible for a full-time member of the board to engage in any paid employment outside the duties of his office as a member of the board. However, I refer the committee to clause 7, which provides for the repeal of section 13 of the principal act and the insertion of a new section 13. Unless I am wrong, proposed new section 13 deals with members of the Broadcasting Control Board. Sub-section (1.) of this proposed new section provides -

If a member -

.

not being a part-time member -

engages in any paid employment outside the duties of his office without the approval of the Minister; . . . the Governor-General shall, by notice published in the “ Gazette “, declare that the office of the member is vacant, and thereupon the office shall be deemed to be vacant.

My reading of that proposed provision is that a full-time member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall not, unless he receives the approval of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office as a member of the board. It appears to me that subsection (4.) of section 8 of the principal act is being deleted and then reinstated with slightly different wording in sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 13. Is that correct?

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– The position as the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) has stated it is correct. Earlier, I took the two provisions together in order to explain the position. Clause 5 will omit from the principal act sub-section (4.) of section 8, and clause 7 will repeal section 13 and insert a new section 13, which will provide that the approval of the Minister must be obtained for paid employment outside the duties of the office of a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks made by the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) and the reasons given by the Minister for the removal from the principal act of sub-section (4.) of section 8. What 1 want to know is why it has been considered necessary to allow a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to take paid employment outside the duties of his office when the Public Service Regulations generally prevent a member of the Public Service from doing exactly the same sort of thing. J want the Minister to tell me and the committee what sort of paid outside employment is envisaged. What sort of outside paid employment would the Minister approve? Surely the expression “ full-time member “ implies that the whole of that member’s energies must be devoted to his employment as a member of the board.

I should like the Minister to tell us, first, in what circumstances he envisages that he would give approval for paid employment outside the duties of a member’s office. Secondly, what sort of employment does he imagine that fulltime members of the Broadcasting Control Board would be entitled to engage in? Thirdly, why is it that, apparently, the duties of full-time members of the board are not expected to engage all of their energies?

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

, - Mr. Chairman, I support the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) in his request for information. At present, no one is opposing clause 5. We are merely seeking information. I made my protest yesterday at the way in which this measure is being dealt with, and I do not want to overplay my hand, as some other figures very much in the public eye these days seem to do. The difficulty over clause 5 is a typical illustration of what happens when a bill is brought in hurriedly and debated until four in the morning, with the consideration of the measure in committee following later on the same day without reasonable time being afforded for honorable members to examine the bill. The position of ordinary members is very difficult. We already have been presented with a circulated list of amendments coverins three pages, and I thank the Government for having drafted some of these amend ments at very short notice. However, private members have no call on a draftsman, and it is very difficult for them to understand a bill in these circumstances.

Clause 5 was not mentioned by the: Minister in his second-reading speech, it will alter certain conditions of employment very considerably. As it happens, an. honorable member who has gone through the measure hurriedly, as any one else would have to do, has picked it up. There may be other things of a similar naturethat ought to have our attention.

I do not propose to repeat the protest that I made yesterday at the way in which this measure is being pushed through. I merely point out once more that this Is not a proper way in which to conduct proceedings in this Parliament.

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– I should like to make just one comment, Mr. Chairman, lt has been said that no reference was made to clause 5 before. That is quite true. The reason was that it seems to me to be a minor amendment of the principal act in order, more or less, to regularize an existing situation. We have been told that ordinary public servants are not able to take paid employment outside the duties of their office, and that is so. The proposal of which clause 5 represents part is designed to protect a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board against certain things. A member of the board may from time to time be called on to do small jobs - for example, for a club - quite outside the time that is normally occupied in the discharge of his duties as a member of the board, and for such jobs he may receive some small honorarium or payment. As the principal act stands, if a member accepted remuneration for such a job, theoretically, he would cause his office to become vacant. The intention is to protect a member of the board against that, and this is the only sort of paid employment for which the Minister’s approval would be given. Approval would not be given for any large-scale job that would in any way affect the discharge of the duties of a member of the board.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- I should like to ask the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) whether a member of the

Australian Broadcasting Control Board, or any one else to be appointed to the board, could be at the same time a director of a television station or a radio station. Does the Minister consider that the amount of salary or compensation paid to the member is adequate for the duties he will be required to perform? Is it suggested that he could engage in some other occupation to give him a suitable salary commensurate with his ability? 1 agree with the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart). I cannot refrain from making a comparison with the Commonwealth Public Service in this matter. Would the Postmaster-General be so keen to give an employee in the Postal Department permission to do outside work in the week-end because his salary was not sufficient to provide for his family? I know of an officer who wanted to take a hard manual job digging post holes, but he could not get permission to do so. Others want to work as totalizator clerks. They are senior officers of the Postal Department, but they are prevented by the Public Service regulations from taking this outside employment. Yet in the terms of this bill, a senior member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will be allowed to engage in an outside occupation, subject to the approval of the Minister. I think we need further clarification of this matter. What does the Minister consider to be a small honorarium? That expression does not tell us very much. What would be the maximum that the Minister would consider such a person should be able to accept?

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– I will not attempt to place any actual limit on the amount that the person concerned may earn, because in each case that would be determined by the particular circumstances. The honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) asked whether one of these officers would be allowed to take a directorship on a television station. Of course that would not be allowed, because it would be an occupation which would impinge on his job as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It would react very seriously against his continued employment. This is not something new; in fact, it will bring this measure into conformity with other acts of a similar character. I understand that there is provision under the Public Service regulations for members of the Public Service to accept small honorariums. Some may go out lecturing. That is the sort of thing we envisage, and that is the way it will be administered. The provisions will not cover jobs or employment which would react in any way, either in point of time or loyalty, against the job with the board. Anything like that would not be allowed.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- I have listened to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) and my comment is that it is all very well for him to say that the discretion will lie with him. He will not always be the Postmaster-General.

Mr Davidson:

– No, a PostmasterGeneral might come from the other side.

Mr GALVIN:

– Yes, and you might not agree with him. The Minister said that there was provision for Commonwealth public servants to engage in other jobs, such as lecturing. If the Minister will allow officers to lecture for a small honorarium, would he be prepared to give the same consideration to other officers and allow them to do manual work or work on totalizator staffs, probably for less remuneration than they would receive for lecturing? They are entitled to just as much consideration as a man who goes lecturing.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- I think that the wording of proposed section 13 (1.) (d) is right and proper. What is the situation generally to-day? Men who work for the Commonwealth Government are taken from all sorts of occupations. That practice was followed by the Labour Government when it was in office. Let us consider the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He was appointed in 1940, and he has private interests outside the commission. Would it not be a criminal shame if the country were deprived of his knowledge and culture simply because he owned some property, engaged in farming or did something else? His ability has been proven by the way he has built up the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

The honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) has dragged out the same old red herring that the Minister of the day will have power to authorize an officer to engage in outside activities. I do not think that even the Australian Labour Party would contemplate allowing a Labour PostmasterGeneral to permit a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to become a director of some competitive show which would complicate his position as a member of the board. That would be in defiance of public opinion and integrity. We must be Australians and grow up. We have to stop scraping the gutter and tearing down the good men that we have.

Mr Cope:

– Why did not the Government appoint one of them GovernorGeneral?

Mr HAMILTON:

– That is all right; I might be eligible for that position myself one of these days. I am certain that, irrespective of the political affiliations of any Postmaster-General - Liberal, Country Party or Labour - he would not write down himself, his party or Australia by appointing to this position somebody who tinkered about with a betting bag at a race-course. I know that it is a very remunerative occupation, but neither 1 nor the honorable member for Kingston would be associated with the appointment of a man who was prepared to stand on a box at the races with a bag over his shoulder painted with the sign “ Pat Galvin “ or something else.

The Opposition is employing delaying tactics. There is always a way to stop abuses should they occur. If any Minister does something that is repugnant to the community, the people’s representatives can bring him into line by raising the matter in the Parliament. No government or party or individual can stand up against public indignation when it is stirred in a matter of this kind. I suggest that we leave the provision as it is so that it will be possible for the Minister, irrespective of his political affiliations, to pick the best man available for the position.

The honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) said we were not told in the Minister’s second-reading speech about such things as this. The honorable member is a great friend of mine and I do not wish to contradict him, but I direct his attention to the second paragraph of the

Postmaster-General’s second-reading speech in which the Minister said -

The bill which I now introduce, incorporates all the matter dealt with in the previous bill-

That is the 1958 bill, which was not proceeded with in the Senate - except for one item, and also includes additional provisions which experience in the field of broadcasting and television since 1958 has shown to be clearly desirable.

Most of the machinery clauses with respect to the staff were included. If I am wrong in what I have said I am prepared to apologize.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) has missed the point which was raised by the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) with whom I join in relation to this matter. I think honorable members will recognize that over the years the practice has grown up of the Liberal Government using boards of this kind to reward party hacks for services rendered. Evidently, they are not full-time duties, although I should imagine that if a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board were doing the job which the public believes him to be doing, he would be fully occupied. If he is to be distracted from his duties by having outside interests and employment, the importance of his position and the time which he could devote to it would be minimized.

The honorable member for Canning evidently looks down his nose at any one who has an occupation of which he does not approve. I do not think there is anything dishonorable about a man having the occupation which the honorable member described as swinging a bag at a racecourse because no one knows what lies ahead of him in this life. Sometimes men of great ability have been obliged to undertake that kind of occupation. If the honorable member had not been fortunate enough to gain selection as the County Party candidate for the Canning electorate, he might have been working for the local council. But he would not have been any less a good citizen because he was working for the local council. The matter of opportunity in life must always be kept in mind. There are many men on the Labour side, and I have no doubt on the Liberal side also who, because they were afforded the opportunity to come into Parliament, were able to display many of the abilities which they possess and which would have been unheard of if they had not had that opportunity.

I agree with the honorable member for Kingston. I do not think that the Minister has confided in us. There has been too much of a tendency to regard appointments to boards of this kind as a reward for people who have given service to the Government. Even from what the Minister has said, it appears to me that the members of the board have time to undertake the outside activities to which the honorable member for Kingston has directed attention. We ought to be told what the functions of the board are, and what work it is actually performing. If it were doing the task that it should be doing in the interests of the Australian community, it would be occupied full-time and the members should devote their full time to it. In addition, the Government should ensure that the members of the board receive appropriate remuneration for their services. That is the only way to get an effective Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and I hope that the Government will take notice of the comments of members of the Opposition.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- 1 shall not delay the committee for long. I merely want to point out that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) is not the best person from whom to take advice on this matter because of his notorious attitude of “ One man, one job “.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I support this clause of the bill because I believe that we shall need people of culture and discernment on the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. It could well be that the honorable member for East Sydney would qualify for appointment. I do not think that a university professor or some person in the arts who possibly lectures on certain subjects, as the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) has said, or performs duties other than those required of him as a member of the board, should be precluded from sitting on the board if he has the qualifications which I think honorable members on both sides of the House are seeking. If the honorable member for East

Sydney had those qualifications, I certainly should not object to him occupying a seat on the board, irrespective of any other activities in which he may indulge.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– This debate gives me the opportunity to put forward the suggestion in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which 1 have already advanced in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board was established by the Chifley Government in 1949, largely at my instance. We have had the Australian Broadcasting Commission for a long time. Neither of those bodies has worked satisfactorily and, in the light of the discussion which has taken place on this clause, and having regard to the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has taken very many months to hear evidence in relation to the granting of television licences, the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) might consider, first, not only removing the part-time positions on the board but also of abolishing the board altogether, and secondly, persuading the Government to appoint a minister for broadcasting to administer the functions of the commission and the board through a permanent departmental head. We would then get greater speed in the determination of matters affecting broadcasting; we would have the problems which arise handled just as efficiently, and we certainly would not have the irritating delays and the great feasts for the legal practitioners which have distinguished the hearings by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board of the applications for television licences.

Mr Hamilton:

– They nearly extinguished the board members.

Mr CALWELL:

– They would be distinguished up to the time that they were extinguished, and they could be distinguished extinguished members of the board. I shall not allow my imagination to run riot too much on that point. I have the feeling that there is something wrong with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and I think that this is the time to say it.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 20 - by leave - taken together.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- Section 26 (1.) of the principal act reads -

The Board shall open and maintain with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank, an account or accounts, into which there shall be paid all moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Board and all other moneys received by the Board.

Clause 13 seeks to amend that sub-section by omitting the words “ Commonwealth Bank” and inserting in their stead the words “ Reserve Bank “ in accordance with the changed name which has been given to the bank by this Government. As the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is a Commonwealth body, why should this section of the principal act allow it to open an account with any other bank than the Reserve Bank of Australia? I feel that section 26 of the principal act should also be amended by omitting the words “and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank “. 1 think it is time that all governments, both State and Federal, should bank with the Commonwealth Bank or with their own State banks rather than give their money to any other prescribed bank. It is time we realized that the people who control the Reserve Bank of Australia are the people who are interested in Australia and want to assist in its development and see that the financial and economic structure of the country is kept on an even keel. The Government has no compunction in using the Commonwealth Bank in certain circumstances, to its own ends. If it is prepared to use the Reserve Bank of Australia, when it suits the Government to do so, it should be prepared on all occasions to place all the business of the Commonwealth in the hands of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

To revert now to clause 9, which amends section 21 of the principal act; this amendment will give the board the right to arrange with the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth for a barrister or solicitor to assist the board of inquiry. At present the board is not entitled to be assisted by legal representation, but the people appearing before it and endeavouring to obtain licences are assisted by a legal councillor. The board is not bound by the rules of evidence. So, instead of making this provision, why not stipulate that the people appearing before the board for licences should not be represented by counsel, instead of putting the whole burden and responsibility on a representative of the Crown Solicitor’s office to battle against Queen’s Counsel from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or “anywhere else? Why allow legal representation before the board in any instance? We find that in some of the industrial courts legal representation is not permitted. Why does not the same principle apply in any appearance before or hearing by the board?

Mr. KILLEN (Moreton) r2.58]. - I am almost dismayed that a person such as the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) should present such an extreme point of view to the committee. The honorable gentleman has suggested - I submit with a measure of seriousness - that every State government and, presumably, every local government authority in this country should bank with the Reserve Bank of Australia. I would have thought that that argument was settled long ago. It was repudiated by the Australian people and was rejected by the High Court of Australia and by the Privy Council; and if I may say so, with goodwill to the Leader of the Opposition, it was one of the arguments that led to a Labour government going into the wilderness. It has long since been what I regard as essentially an obsolescent form of thinking - a doctrinaire form of thinking - to imagine you can lay down every manner and form of human behaviour. Such a doctrine is completely repugnant to the Australian tradition, and it is something which has been repudiated time and again by the Australian people. Looking at the political result, I do not think I have anything to complain about, because so long as the Labour Party insists on pursuing this line of thought it will remain in opposition.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– When the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) made his appearance in this House a year or two ago he briefed the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) to put his case to the Parliament. I do not think he will make the same mistake twice and I am sure, that, having listened to him now, the AttorneyGeneral will be ashamed that he ever trusted his legal fate to the honorable member’s hands. There is nothing wrong with requiring every municipal authority and every

State government handling public moneys to bank with the people’s bank. It is true that we were defeated, but we still believe that the Government should bank and have all financial dealings with the Commonwealth Bank. If honorable members who are interrupting will read the clause they will see that it provides that the board shall bank with the Reserve Bank of Australia and not with the Commonwealth Bank. We think that the board ought to continue with the Commonwealth Trading Bank-

Mr Davidson:

– We do not exclude the Reserve Bank.

Mr CALWELL:

– You substitute the Reserve Bank for the Commonwealth Bank.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Are they not the same unit?

Mr CALWELL:

– They are not the same unit. We know that a dreadful piece of surgery was performed last year and that a mutilated section of the Commonwealth Bank is now the Reserve Bank. This legislation is designed to harm the people’s bank. It is all part of the same plot and we protest against the Government doing what it is doing in the matter. I am referring to clause 13.

I wish now to deal with clause 9, the sidenote of which reads “ Briefing of counsel to assist board “. The performances of counsel and of the board over the last few years since television licences were made available to commercial interests show that counsel only clog up the work of the board and that it would be far better if no counsel appeared before it for either side. But under this and another provision, counsel are to have the same right to cross-examine witnesses as have members of the board, and thus the delay will be even greater than it has been. It looks as though only those who have a lot of money and can spend it on briefing counsel and wearing everybody else down will have a hope of staying long enough before the board to justify their claims.

We think that instead of encouraging more lawyers to appear before the board we should reverse the process. What the honorable member for Lang has said in the matter is perfectly true. We are told, in clause 12, that the board is not bound by the rules of evidence, so the lawyers are going to have even greater feasts than they usually get in the courts of law. They can ask questions about all sorts of matters and weeks and weeks of unnecessary delay, time-consuming and costing a lot of money, will be experienced by the board and those appearing before it in the future. Why should not the board be bound by the laws of evidence? What explanation has the Attorney-General for the departure from what is a common-sense practice in our courts where the truth is elucidated according to a set of rules which experience has found to be necessary? If lawyers can go on all sorts of journeyings into fancy and everything else when appearing before the board, either the board members will get sick and tired of it and will not want to serve, or else a lot of people who might want to get licences will not have a chance of obtaining them. What chance would a university have of getting a licence under this provision, even if it had the share capital as provided under another section of the bill? What opportunity has any group of people performing a useful function and doing some service to the community of getting a licence if it has to meet the competition of commercial interests which are concerned not with educating or uplifting the people or building morale but with playing down to popular tastes so that they can make more and more money out of what they are doing? I am told that one of the Sydney stations - I think it was the Packer station - made a profit of £300,000 in the first year of its operations. These are gold mines which the Government is giving, through the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, to many people. It would seem that only those with a good deal of money will be able to get any more of these gold mines so long as we continue to have this type of legislation.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) has stated two propositions. I propose to show that both are ill-founded. First, he stated that only people with money can afford to brief counsel in order to be properly represented before the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that only people with money can afford to own and operate television stations. If people can afford to set up television stations, costing anything between £200,000 and £250.000, to cater efficiently for the needs of the people, surely they can afford to pay a reasonable fee to a man who is able to state their cases properly before the board. If there is any fault at all, it lies not in the provision for legal representation, but in the rule that the board shall not be bound by the rules of evidence. But we are not discussing that clause now.

Mr Calwell:

– Yes, we are.

Mr BANDIDT:

– We are discussing the clause which provides that a barrister or solicitor assisting the board in an inquiry shall have the same power to examine witnesses as a member of the board, and that the board may arrange with the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth for a barrister or a solicitor to assist it.

Mr Calwell:

– We are discussing every clause from clause 6 to clause 20.

Mr BANDIDT:

– We arc dealing only with this particular provision at the moment, and I shall not allow the Leader of the Opposition’s tactics to divert me from my intention to prove that the argument adduced by him is ill-founded. In order that he may understand the position, I repeat that he has argued that we should reject the clause enabling the parties to have legal representation, because such representation would cost too much. I am pointing out that companies which can afford to establish television stations can afford to pay legal practitioners to present their cases before the board.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition has implied that the clause with which we are now dealing seeks to change the situation in connexion with banking. It seeks to do no more than substitute “ Reserve Bank” for “Commonwealth Bank”. The clause does not seek to set up a situation under which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board must bank with some other institution, whereas formerly it banked with a particular organization, namely, the Commonwealth Bank. All the clause seeks to do is make what might be termed a consequential amendment to the act.

Mr Ward:

– What is your fee - 5s.?

Mr BANDIDT:

– If I were to give proper advice to the honorable member for East Sydney, he would not be sitting in this Parliament if he followed that advice. The point I am making is that the act now states that banking shall be done in a certain way - that it shall be done by depositing moneys with a certain institution and with such other institutions as may be decided. Since that provision became operative, the Commonwealth Bank has been divided into sections, one of which is now called the Reserve Bank. It therefore becomes necessary, as a consequential step, to change the words “ Commonwealth Bank “ to the words “ Reserve Bank “, leaving intact the original provision giving the right to bank in such other banks as may be decided upon. That being so, any suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that this terrible Government is now trying to foist something on to the people, or to permit the board to bank with a private bank, thus giving it a right which it did not have before, is entirely false. This clause seeks to do nothing more than make a consequential amendment which becomes necessary only because of the fact that the Commonwealth Bank has been divided into sections and that those sections have been given certain names. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more. I was not able to ascertain that the Leader of the Opposition made any other points that require comment from me.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- I support the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) concerning the clauses which relate to the building of an empire by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. These clauses make for the same old evil which descends upon all government instrumentalities - the desire to grow bigger and bigger. They refer to legal representation, expansion, the examination of evidence, lay-by lawyers, and one thing and another. The very essence of the original act was simplicity. The PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) will understand my meaning when I say that another objective of the original act was speed in obtaining decisions. Who knows better than he does that the clogging down and the delay experienced in getting decisions are due to the whole process being cluttered up with lawyers?

Every day we read in the press great headlines and over-reported accounts of incidents connected with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. This, as the

Leader of the Opposition has shown, is clear evidence of the weight of money and the weight of propaganda that is used by those who control the wealthy companies which are seeking television licences. These people are using this propaganda for their own ends, in an endeavour to gobble up all television licences. In order to gain control of all television stations, it is essential that these wealthy companies should have all possible advantages, including a galaxy of lawyers.

On the other side, we have the little independent companies which may have a higher moral right to licences than the rich men or the rich companies. A small independent company is at a disadvantage because of the set-up proposed for hearings by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) has pointed out, legal representation is not necessary. Our courts of conciliation and arbitration, our repatriation tribunals and so on, which are required to sift evidence and gather material, function very well without the parties being legally represented. Very often the participation of legal eagles leads more to confusion than to clarification of a situation. This bill changes the aspect of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The board was established to ensure that certain standards of conduct and certain codes in relation to broadcasting and television were observed, and to hear evidence and submissions concerning the granting of licences, and other relevant matters. If it grows into an enormous court like the many special courts all over the country, it will not do any good.

It is quite obvious that the Q.C.’s who arrive in a galaxy to discuss these cases are being employed as pressure groups to impress the newspaper readers and. indeed, the board, which is highly flattered to see these prominent Q.C.’s appear before it. They are employed at a high figure to press the claims of the rich companies. If the Postmaster-General is as sincere as I think he is. he should have another look at these clauses, and satisfy himself that we can do without lawyers in these cases. We do not want high pressure applied; we want to get at the truth. It is apparent from the provisions of the bill that the Government is worried about what has happened and is seeking a way to control these companies that can bring pressure to bear on the board. The simplicity of the bill should be preserved. These clauses are unnecessary. They add to the expense and the confusion of the situation by permitting legal luminaries to be employed on every occasion.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– Heaven forbid that I should delay the committee. However, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) either does not understand or deliberately misrepresents the position and, in the space of a few minutes, I hope to put the matter right. It is true that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board wishes to be able to have legal representation. However, on the other hand, the board is, in this amendment, given power to control the proceedings before it. That means that it does not have to listen for hours to irrelevant evidence. The result will be that the hearings will be shortened and not, as the honorable member suggested, drawn out to inordinate lengths.

Mr COPE:
Watson

.- I support the views of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) and the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), who have referred to the lucrative field being opened for lawyers to present cases to the board. Honorable members, particularly those of the Australian Country Party, have time after time stated that they believe in reducing the costs of production.

Mr Hamilton:

– So we do.

Mr COPE:

– If you do, then you should support the contention of the Opposition that lawyers should not be allowed to appear before the board. All of these costs are eventually passed on to the consumer, whether by the successful applicant or the unsuccessful applicant. In this field, it will be done by increasing the cost of advertising on television, which is met by the cost of the product. If the costs keep mounting in these hearings before the board, they will be passed on to the consumer. I believe that we should prohibit the appearance of counsel before the board, because it is quite unnecessary to have them. Mention has been made of trade unions and the Arbitration Commission. The appearance of counsel before the commission costs a lot of money and this is passed on to the members of the union in increased fees. These Cost. are passed on in every instance, no matter what it is, and I believe that it is absolutely unnecessary to give lawyers this lucrative field in which they can charge their 100 guineas and 150 guineas a day.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

.- 1 support clause 9.

Mr Stewart:

– Are you a legal man?

Mr JESS:

– No, no such luck. 1 am rather amazed to find that 1 seem to hi supporting the little man while Opposition members seem to be taking away from him any protection that he may have. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart), I am sure, has given this matter much thought, but he rather suggests that we go to the other extreme and take away the applicant’s right of legal representation. If the applicant is inarticulate - possibly like the honorable member for Parkes - why should he not have the right of legal representation before the Australian Broadcasting Control Board? If he has that right and if he wants to invest some of his assets in a television station, why should not the board have the same right of legal representation? We would agree to give this right to an individual, and we should agree to give it also to the board. I support the clause.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- It was refreshing to hear the views of a Government supporter who is not associated with the legal profession.

Mr Ward:

– He is in another racket, though.

Mr GALVIN:

– That may be so. The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) made a plea for the right of legal men to appear to assist the board, and the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner) joined forces with him. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), who is, or who hopes some day to be, a solicitor, also entered the fray in support of the claim that there should be legal representation. It may be that these honorable members are looking to the day when they may be employed in such a capacity. I should like the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) to give us the benefit of his views on this clause.

It would be interesting to know what he thinks of it, and he could give us the real reason why members of the board need this assistance.

I agree with Opposition members that a much clearer and a better decision would be given by the board if the legal men’ were removed from the hearings altogether. My mind goes back to the days of thu Chifley Government’s conciliation and arbitration legislation. We excluded legal men from hearings before the Conciliation Commissioners and the courts. We found that, with the legal men out of the way, the employers and employees could settle down and reach decisions away from all technicalities. However, the provision wc are now discussing will provide a real harvest for the legal men. One cannot blame the lawyers amongst honorable members opposite for advocating that this provision should be adopted. As I said earlier, they are probably looking for jobs in the future. 1 can understand their point of view, but I should like to hear from some of the other honorable members opposite.

Surely there can be no real objection to the suggestion made by the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) that the board should bank with the Commonwealth Bank. I should like the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) to tell me, if he would, whether it is intended that the board should bank, or whether the board now in fact banks, with the private trading banks in any part of Australia. It is often the case that government instrumentalities place their money with the private banks purposely. This mav explain why at election time we find officers of the banks canvassing against the Australian Labour Party. The banks get the pay-off from this Government, which channels money to them, and in return they support the Government against the Labour Party at election time. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General where the board banks at present and whether he will give an assurance that it will in future bank with the Commonwealth Bank and not with the private trading banks.

Mr BARNES:
McPherson

.- With regard to clause 13. the important point is that the board should be able to use the best banking services available.

Since we do not support a policy of monopoly socialism we have no alternative but to agree with this proposal. This morning honorable members debated the plight of our aborigines. Their plight has arisen from devotion to socialism over thousands of years. We have no desire to reduce the people of Australia to a similar way of life and, therefore, I suggest that we should agree to the clause.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- Clause 9 provides that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board may avail itself of legal assistance at any of its hearings. Judging by the speeches of members of the Opposition on this matter, I am inclined to think they are putting their heads in the sand; they are not looking forward to the time, which they often talk about, when they may form the government and may want to employ legal assistance. I agree with the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) that although the arbitration court in Western Australia does not include any legal men it has worked satisfactorily. But a legal practitioner is entitled to a job, and if the board has occasion to engage his services I can see no objection to its doing so. The members of the Opposition have never disagreed with the principle that a person should be able to obtain employment if he wants it.

It must be remembered that it was a Labour government which set up the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in 1949 to exercise certain functions. Since the advent of television, the principal act has been amended to provide, under section 16 (3.). that-

The Board shall have power -

subject to any direction of the Minister, to determine the situation and operating power of a broadcasting station or television station.

The section goes on to define the various matters to be determined by the board, and paragraph (f) of sub-section (3.) provides that it may conduct examinations as to the competence of persons to operate the technical equipment of these stations. It is no good the Opposition indulging in these skirmishes and wasting time. The section clearly lays down that the board shall have power “subject to any direction of the Minister “ to determine these matters. Is it not logical to assume that the board or the chairman of the board will explain to the Minister of the day what the procedure is to be?

I say again that one day, although it may be twenty years hence, the Labour Party may form the government and have a Postmaster-General. Therefore, should the then chairman of the board wish to discuss matters relating to the furtherance of television, surely he will discuss the programme for meetings of this kind. Proposed new section 21a, which is set out in clause 9 of the bill, provides that - (1.) Where, in relation to an inquiry under this Division, the Board considers that it is desirable so to do . . . it shall obtain legal assistance. Does it not follow as a natural corollary that if the chairman or members of the board discuss the programme with the PostmasterGeneral, if he is any sort of a PostmasterGeneral at all, he will ask how the board proposes to discuss the matter, and the chairman will probably reply, “I think we should have legal assistance “. He is entitled to ask for such assistance because he thinks it is desirable to do so.

But the Minister need not agree with all that. In the final analysis the matter of employing legal assistance really comes back to the members of this Parliament. I was surprised to hear some members of the Opposition say to-day that they did not know about the provision which enables legal assistance to be available for the board. Ever since the inquiry into applications for country television licences began, some time after the closing date of applications last September, a gentleman of the legal fraternity has been assisting the board.

Mr Galvin:

– That is why the inquiry has taken so long.

Mr HAMILTON:

– It might be a good thing if members of the Opposition helped to get this measure through so that it might put a little more ginger, or teeth, into the act. Members of the Opposition should give a little thought to this point because at some time in the far distant future they may be in government and a governmental instrumentality of this kind may need legal assistance. I point out, however, that this legal assistance can be obtained only if the board considers it desirable. Otherwise the whole thing can be decided by the Minister. Most PostmastersGeneral in the past have been reasonable men. but this provision makes available to the Postmaster-General and to the board legal assistance if they need it.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- The clauses of the bill with which we are now dealing include a number of provisions which have been criticized by members on both sides of the House. I want to make a passing reference to the question of the bank with which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall conduct its business. I agree with the honorable member for McPherson (Mr. Barnes). It is the first time I have ever done so, but I want to say to him that I, too, believe that the board should bank with the best bank, and obviously the best bank is the Commonwealth Bank. The honorable member made it quite clear, however, that the Government intends, if it gets the opportunity, to sabotage this bank and destroy it because the Government regards it as an instrument of socialism. That is an illuminating thought for the people of this country to ponder before they have their next opportunity of voting at general elections. I have always believed that it was the intention of the Government to sabotage this particular public institution.

I now pass to the question of legal representation before the board. What we have to keep in mind - and I differ on this with some of my colleagues - is that this does not necessarily involve a question of costs. I should imagine that people who will apply for licences would not be in poor circumstances. I oppose this provision because, when the Broadcasting Control Board is dealing with applications for licences, its first consideration should be to get down to the facts. However, it is most difficult to get the facts when lawyers appear before the board to represent applicants. We have had evidence to support such a viewpoint by our experiences in this Parliament. The most simple proposition sometimes, when explained by a lawyer, becomes most complex and difficult. I believe that the exclusion of lawyers would expedite proceedings before the board an’l lead to a greater degree of clarity of thought; it would assist the members of the board in making their decision.

Just as we criticized the appointment of what we termed “ part-time members “ to the board, I am also critical of part-time lawyers who have taken part in this debate. They want to be members of Parliament and also they want everybody to remember that they regard themselves as very distinguished members of their profession. The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) made some reference to myself during his speech. At least he is appropriately named for his profession if for nothing else. As I listened to him, I recollected what a distinguished member of this party once said. In years gone by he was Speaker of this House - I refer to the late Mr. Rosevear. On one occasion, when listening to one of the legal members on the Government side he said, “Now I know why the gaols are full “. That is what I thought as the honorable member for Wide Bay was making his contribution to this debate.

Now I pass to another important matter. Clause 16 of the bill refers to people who may be disqualified from acting as commissioners. Proposed new section 37 provides - fi.) If a Commissioner -

  1. becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit . . .

He then vacates his position. I can understand that. Anybody who becomes bankrupt obviously should not remain as a commissioner. But what I want to know is this: If a commissioner is disqualified because of this circumstance, can he become eligible for re-appointment? It may happen that a person, who becomes bankrupt through circumstances over which he has no control, is able subsequently to discharge his indebtedness and get a clearance from the court. Would he then become eligible for re-appointment? I should like the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), to confer with the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick) on this point because we know that in this country people who have been bankrupt have later risen to positions of high eminence in this Parliament and people in similar circumstances could, no doubt, some time in the future, become members of the High Court of Australia. If they can qualify as members of the High Court surely they ought to be eligible for re-appointment as members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

I realize that the Government is trying to bulldoze this legislation through the Parliament, keeping us here until the early hours of the morning, exhausting everybody; but these are important queries that ought to be answered by the Government so that we may have a clear indication of what it intends. So I hope that the Government and the Postmaster-General will pay some attention to the suggestions made by members of the Opposition.

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– We are not trying to bulldoze this legislation through. If a little bit of sanity were brought into the discussion, if there could be some cessation of stonewalling, which in my opinion is worse than bulldozing, we might get somewhere. However, since I have been asked for a statement let me reply briefly to the suggestions made by the Opposition. First, we have the proposal made by the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart). He objects to the present form of section 26 of the act which reads -

The Board shall open and maintain with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank, an account or accounts . . .

His objection, and the objection of other honorable members, I think, is to the words “ any other prescribed bank “. This indicates the basic cleavage between the banking policy of the Government parties and that of the Opposition. We believe in building up a strong and effective Commonwealth banking system. In fact, this Government has done more than any other government did to achieve that object.

Mr Calwell:

– You have done everything you can to destroy the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– We have done everything to achieve the object I mentioned. The Commonwealth banking system is to-day in a stronger position than it has ever been in previously. At the same time, however, we believe in providing, for the service of the people, an equally effective trading bank system, so that people will have the opportunity to choose their bank. We translate that policy into our legislation.

The provision with which I am now concerned is already in the act. It is in other acts that govern the activities of Commonwealth instrumentalities. We deliberately included the provision in the various acts some time ago. In actual fact - and I know that this will be of great interest to honorable members - the Australian Broadcasting Control Board banks with the Commonwealth Reserve Bank, but the opportunity is there, if the board wishes to use it, for it to place its account with another trading bank. There are other government instrumentalities which, for convenience or for some other reason, deal with private trading banks, as they have the right to do. and we have not the slightest intention of changing that position.

Now I turn to the employment of counsel at the board’s hearings. As the honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner) very properly pointed out, there are two provisions in this bill that are designed to reduce, and will reduce, the waste of time which has been a factor in previous hearings by the board. I have said frankly on previous occasions that there has been a waste of time. We realized that, and this is one of the ways we are taking to deal with the position. We are amending the act in order to avoid loss of time in lengthy hearings, which has resulted from the fact that barristers have had an unqualified right to address the board and to crossexamine witnesses. The measure will take away that right. It is necessary to read clause 9 - proposed new section 21a - in conjunction with clause 10, which amends section 22 of the act. This is the section that gives the board power in relation to cross-examinations by counsel appearing before it. The section as amended will provide that cross-examination or addresses will now be subject to any direction of the board given under sub-section (1.) of section 25.

Clause 12. which seeks to amend section 25 of the principal act, provides that the board - may give all such directions and do all such things as the Board considers are necessary or expedient for the expeditious and just hearing of the inquiry.

There you have it in a nutshell. We set out to limit the right of counsel to address the board and cross-examine witnesses at will, which they had practically without limitation. Therefore, I say that these proposals will result in a reduction of costs; they will result in much more expeditious hearings; they will be all to the good and will achieve the object that we all desire.

The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) wanted to know whether a commissioner who lost his position, under clause 16 - the proposed new section 37 - as a result of becoming bankrupt would be eligible for re-appointment when he obtained his discharge. The reply is that of course he would, because that is the general practice in all spheres. If for some reason or other a man becomes bankrupt and then obtains his discharge, he is entitled to resume his normal place in the community.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- The PostmasterGeneral’s explanations do not convince me, particularly his explanation regarding the board’s bank accounts. He admitted that the board banks with the Reserve Bank. That certainly should be the case. My statement was that the board should do so. All government instrumentalities ought to bank with the Commonwealth Bank, because the moneys they receive are either appropriated by the Parliament for their purposes or are received, in the case of the broadcasting authorities, as licence-fees. In the first case, the money is Commonwealth money found by the taxpayers, so it ought to be banked with the Commonwealth Bank and not banked with a private bank by which it might be lent out to a hire-purchase company, and so reap benefits for that company. I think that all moneys received by Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities should be banked with the Commonwealth Bank. I think that everybody, with the exception of the private trading banks, would agree with that statement.

The Postmaster-General admitted that one of the reasons for the insertion of the amendment regarding the making of addresses and the conducting of crossexamination of witnesses by legal representatives before the board was that proceedings had been too lengthy. The board’s inquiries were too lengthy because legal men representing applicants had the unqualified right to address and crossexamine. Because these legal men have been receiving fees of 100 guineas or 200 guineas a day, or whatever they charge - the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) could give the committee much more accurate information on that than I can - they have been inclined to make the inquiries stretch out. It is interesting to note that in the Melbourne “ Age “ of 10th May, 1960, there is an article under the heading “TV Corp. Pays 20% for Year”. The article states that T.C.N. Channel 9 would pay a total dividend of 20 per cent, in 1959-60. It adds-

Directors say that while revenue for the period to April 30 was higher, costs also increased. However, net profit-

And this is the point I want the committee to note - after allowing for legal costs of the country television inquiry and providing for tax - is comparable with the result for the same period last year.

The legal costs paid by Television Corporation Limited - Channel 9 - were met from the company’s earnings for the year, yet the profits were maintained. But any legal costs to the Commonwealth will be borne by the taxpayer. The legal costs of private television interests will be passed on to the advertisers, who will pay more for their television advertising, and each advertiser will pass the cost on to the consumer of his commodity by increasing the price. So, in the long run, the person who buys the commodity pays the legal costs of the commercial interests at the same time as, as a taxpayer, he pays the legal costs of the board when the Crown Solicitor has appointed a man to help the board in its deliberations.

As a result of these television inquiries the Commonwealth is giving certain interests licences which enable them to make a profit on which they can pay a dividend of 20 per cent, a year to their shareholders. So why should the Commonwealth be involved in any extra expense at all? I will give the names of the people on the Broadcasting Control Board. They are Mr. Robert Gumley Osborne, C.B.E., B.A., LL.B., Mr. Robert Bruce Mair, Mr. Reginald Arthur Yeo, Dr. James Ralph Darling, and Mr. Randal Merrick White. All these people who have been appointed by the Commonwealth are above reproach. Surely, in making their decision, they do not have to be bound by the rules of evidence and surely they should not be compelled to have legal counsel appearing on behalf of applicants for licences. The people who apply for licences should be able to put their case to the board in the same fashion as do union advocates and industrial officers of employers who appear before certain industrial commissions and as do members of the public who appear before the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and the Assessment Appeal Tribunals before which no barrister is allowed to appear. Many cases before such tribunals are successfully conducted by advocates. Similar conditions should apply in this instance. We should cut down the cost of these inquiries and the length of time that they occupy, but we will not succeed in doing this unless we get rid of the time-wasting devices of members of the legal fraternity.

Mr ANDERSON:
Hume

.- I rise to protest against the attack which the Opposition is constantly making on Australian institutions, especially the private banks. These attacks are being made with sickening regularity. After all, the private banks are Australian institutions. They have had a powerful effect on our development. I regard the Opposition’s constant attacks, not only on the banks, but on other Australian institutions, as highly unAustralian. Opposition members are trying to destroy Australian institutions which have built up this great country.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The more I examine this bill in committee the more suspicious I become of the intentions of the Government in more ways than one. I realize, to my surprise, that the principal act allows the commission to bank with any bank in Australia, including the private banks. Could anything be more absurd than to allow a governmental instrumentality to bank with a private bank when the best bank in the world, namely the Reserve Bank of Australia, is owned and controlled by the people of Australia? All the profits of that bank go to the nation. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) would like to see the profits which accrue from the banking transactions of the commission go into the pockets of the shareholders in the private banks.

Mr Calwell:

– They are the people who pay his election expenses.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As the Leader of the Opposition says, they are the people who pay the election expenses of the Australian Country Party and of the Liberal Party. It does not surprise me to hear the honorable member for Hume support the private banks because the late Mr. Chifley said that he had absolute proof that the private banks were contributing to the election campaign funds of the present Government parties.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That subject is not related to the clause.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did not think that it was when the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) mentioned it, but as he raised the matter I thought that I could answer what he had said. However, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I was surprised that the honorable member for Hume was permitted to relate his remarks to the clause under discussion.

I would like to ask the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) to explain one or two certain rather curious features of the bill. Clause 15 says, among other things, that each commissioner shall hold office subject to good behaviour. What is meant by “ subject to good behaviour “? Who is to determine what is good behaviour? If the Minister decides that a commissioner’s behaviour is not good, will the commissioner have any right of appeal? Will he be dismissed as the result of an address by both Houses of the Parliament, or is the Minister able to axe him of his own volition? Before the Minister winds up the debate I hope that he will answer those questions.

I am certainly curious about clause 16 of the bill which will insert a new section 38 in the principal act, compelling the disclosure of the interest of a commissioner in any contract that may be entered into by the commission. The new section 38 provides -

A commissioner who is directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Commission, otherwise than as a member, and in common with the other members, of an incorporated company consisting of not less than twenty-five persons, shall, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Commission.

Presumably if the company has fewer than 25 persons he does not have to disclose the fact that he is a member of the company. That position is absolutely absurd. A commissioner may be the biggest shareholder in one of the biggest companies in Australia but providing that there are not more than 25 shareholders in that company, from my reading of the bill, he would not be obliged to disclose that fact. In any event, see how unreal it is! The proposed new section then continues -

A disclosure under the last preceding subsection

That is assuming that he has disclosed that he is a member of a company which is about to enter into a contract with the commission - shall be recorded in the minutes of the commission, and the commissioner -

  1. shall not take part after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision of the commission with respect to the contract.

How unreal is that position! Here we have all the members of the commission sitting together day after day, travelling together, eating together, and drinking together. Yet it is to be assumed that a commissioner, after disclosing that he is a member of a company which is entering into a contract with the commission, is not going to have any advantage over anybody else because of the fact that he happens to be a member of the company. It just does not work that way. It is not human nature for people to sit together over the years, day after day, and then to turn their backs on one of their fellows and place him at a disadvantage.

There is also a proposal that the commission shall have the right to bring in legal representatives. I think that legal representatives should be prevented from appearing for any of the parties that come before the commission. I have the greatest of respect for lawyers. I have every good reason to be very grateful for the assistance that they have given me in certain matters. I say that in all sincerity and seriousness. There are some fields of jurisdiction into which only an absolute lunatic would go without a lawyer - and a good lawyer. But there are other fields in which, in my view, providing that there is no prejudice arising from the fact that a person is not represented by a lawyer, the proceedings are very much better in the absence of lawyers. When I refer to being prejudiced I do not refer to any disadvantage in competing, as a layman, with the trained legal mind. The honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) and I have very good reason to know how true it is to say that the layman suffers from no disadvantage in many matters. As chief industrial officer and court advocate of theAustralian Workers Union in Adelaide for many years, the honorable member for Kingston has been in a splendid position to compare the effectiveness of wage-fixing and the determination of working conditions when conducted between legal men with that of such processes conducted between non-legal men. My colleague has appeared before judges in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it was known at the time, and competed there against trained legal men. I am pleased to be able to say to his credit that in every instance that I can recall he defeated them. That was probably because he knew his industry so well.

The trouble is that it costs money to compete against legal men and long delays ensue before decisions are handed down, in contrast with the cheapness and expedition with which these industrial matters are dealt with by the industrial boards, as we call them, in South Australia, where representatives of employers and employees are laymen. The law requires that the parties be represented only by laymen. They are able to sit round a table under an independent chairman. Decisions are obtained much more expeditiously and with greater satisfaction to both sides when they are represented by laymen. The laymen are able to put their points of view frankly, say what the difficulties are and ask the adjudicating chairman to decide the issue accordingly. I have never known a dispute to arise out of a decision by an industrial board the whole of the members of which were laymen.

Tn this field of television, we are going to clutter up proceedings that are not really suited to legal disputation. They demand no more than the exercise of plain common sense. Where disputes are of the kind that can best be resolved by plain common sense, surely, we ought not to turn our backs on those people who are most capable of exercising sane common sense.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- Mr. Chairman, Opposition speakers, with the exception of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), have attempted to flay the lawyers. One may say in favour of the honorable member for Hindmarsh that he at least has given credit where it is due. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), however, made some particularly trenchant observations about lawyers and dragged in some old saying to the effect that if there were not so many lawyers there would not be so many people in gaol. Perhaps we may deal with the point implicit in the honorable member’s argument by asking him whether he has ever had occasion to seek the services of a lawyer, and whether, if he has done so, the lawyer kept him out of gaol. Or was the result that he went to gaol?

Mr BIRD:
Batman

.- Mr. Chairman, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bandidt) asked whether the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) had ever had occasion to seek the assistance of a lawyer in order to prevent himself from being sent to gaol. The two situations which the honorable member for Wide Bay attempted to compare are entirely different. It is recognized that in the various courts of the land - the criminal courts, the courts of petty sessions and what have you - the Crown is represented by legal practitioners and that, consequently, a person who appears in those courts as a defendant ought to be represented by a legal adviser who will be familiar with the hundreds of acts which deal with various crimes. In those circumstances, only a person with legal training could hope to cross swords successfully with a legal expert representing the Crown who has been well versed in the art of legalisms ever since his university days.

To suggest that the procedure in the courts of the land is on all fours with the procedure adopted at inquiries conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is to compare chalk with cheese. Everybody knows that, in an inquiry by the Broadcasting Control Board to determine whether a certain group or company shall receive a licence to operate a television station, there is no need to call upon the statutes or to adopt the procedures adopted in criminal cases. To-day, we have the unedifying spectacle of the board’s inquiries being drawn out to inordinate lengths. They drag on and on, and one wonders whether they will ever finish. When one looks for the reasons for the longevity of these inquiries, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that it is due to the activities of. the legal gentlemen who exploit all possible means of ensuring that they are engaged in these inquiries for as long as possible.

Surely it is possible for laymen to put a case for the granting of a licence to a particular group or company rather than to another group or company. There is no earthly reason why entangling legalisms should be dragged into these inquiries, thereby extending them far beyond the time that they should take. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the people in any particular part of Australia should be deprived of the advantages of television just because the legal gentlemen concerned in an inquiry held by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have determined that they will put lengthy arguments over something that could probably be determined in a week or two if laymen were able to put the respective cases in plain, every-day language.

I suggest that no case has been made this afternoon to establish the need to provide these opportunities for legal practitioners. I am sure that if matters were left to the common sense of the parties which appear before the board in inquiries into applications for television licences or into other matters that may come before the board from time to time, we should get decisions much more quickly. I suggest, too, that the decisions would be equally as intelligent as are those that we obtain with the aid of legal men, because interests that are prepared to invest £250,000, £300,000 or £400,000 in a television station know what they want. They know the merits of their case and they can put it without any assistance from legal gentlemen. Therefore, I suggest that the best thing to do is to leave the matter in the hands of laymen. As has been amply demonstrated by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) laymen have made a complete success of the wages board or industrial board system without the assistance of legal practitioners at all.

I turn now to clause 13. I want to protest briefly against the idea that any government or official instrumentality should for one moment consider depositing with any bank other than the Reserve Bank of Australia funds that have been appropriated for Commonwealth revenue. This matter is not a question of the rights and privileges of the private banks. It is a question of preserving the rights and privi-leges of the taxpayers of Australia. If money taken from the pockets of the taxpayers is to be deposited in a bank where it may earn interest for somebody, it should be deposited in the taxpayers’ own bank. This is not a question of one’s political philosophy - of whether one believes in private enterprise or in public enterprise in the field of banking. It is solely a question of pounds, shillings and pence. If this Government is really concerned about protecting the interests of the taxpayers and seeing that they get full value for the taxes that they pay, it ought to ensure that any benefit derived by a bank from the depositing with it of funds obtained from the people by means of taxes is derived by the people’s bank, the profits of which go back to the people.

The CHAIRMAN:

– With what clause is the honorable member dealing?

Mr BIRD:

– I am discussing clause 13.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That clause does not mention the private banks.

Mr BIRD:

– No. but it will amend section 26 of the principal act - a section which deals with the banking of moneys. Surely we are entitled to make passing reference to the principal act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member ought to confine himself to the clause. It states -

Section twenty-six of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “ Commonwealth Bank “ and inserting in their stead the words “Reserve Bank”; . . .

That is simple enough.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That opens up the whole of section 26 of the act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair will decide that.

Mr Ward:

– On a point of order. If clause 13 - one of the clauses now before the committee - provides that certain words shall be omitted from section 26 of the principal act, why is it not in order for Opposition members to suggest that other words be omitted from that section? Section 26 of the principal act states -

The Board shall open and maintain with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank, an account or accounts . . .

It is proposed in the bill to omit the words “ Commonwealth Bank “ and insert in their stead “ Reserve Bank “. Why is it not in order for a member of this committee to suggest that other words be struck out of that particular section?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The section refers only to transferring the accounts from one bank to another.

Mr BIRD:

– Am I not in order then, Mr. Chairman, in discussing this matter?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order if he discusses a private bank.

Mr BIRD:

– I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will still be able under this legislation to place its accounts in the people’s bank. I think that every government instrumentality should be compelled by law to place its accounts in the hands of the public bank, because those instrumentalities are using public money. It is not a question of whether they believe in one banking system or another, but solely a matter of getting the best return for public money. I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to allow the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to place its accounts in the Reserve Bank, and I congratulate the Government. I trust that the board will take the only business-like course open to it and see that the account is placed with the people’s bank so that any profit from the use of that money will return revenue to the Reserve Bank and thus to the taxpayers. I hope that the example set by this bill will be extended to all Commonwealth instrumentalities, because it is in the interests of the taxpayers of Australia.

Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford

.- I should like to refer to clause 9, which provides for the insertion of a new section 21a. This proposed new section relates to the briefing of counsel to assist the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Some members of this Parliament, and especially honorable members on the Government side of the chamber, are very touchy when any one mentions lawyers. The Parliament is full of lawyers, and I think it suffers in consequence. The Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) is a distinguished lawyer and might be described as a huge corporation lawyer. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) is_ not so talented. He might be called a third-rate lawyer. We find that all these legal lights are careful when drawing up a bill to ensure that it contains provisions which will allow the lawyers to pick the financial bones of any individual who might be involved in an inquiry.

Sub-section (1.) of the proposed new section states -

Where, in relation to an inquiry under this Division, the Board considers that it is desirable to do so, the Board may arrange with the Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth for a barrister of solicitor to assist the Board at the inquiry.

The board does not want this provision; it was placed in the bill by a lawyer. Reference is made to a barrister or a solicitor, but I do not know why the bill mentions both. Sub-section (2.) states -

A barrister or solicitor assisting the Board at an inquiry has the same power to examine witnesses as a member of the Board.

That means a barrister at 100 guineas a day and another at 50 guineas a day, a junior and a solicitor.

Mr Chaney:

– Why does not the honorable member read the bill? It does not mean that at all.

Mr CURTIN:

– When I want the advice of the honorable member for Perth I shall ask for it. During the current inquiry on the granting of television licences, the barristers and solicitors are in for a kill. If barristers or solicitors could be obtained a little more cheaply, this clause would not be in the bill because the lawyers would not be interested. The honorable member for Perth is supposed to be the protector of the taxpayers’ money. There will be great jubilation on the Government side when this clause is agreed to because it will permit the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or the Government to spend on lawyers the taxpayers’ money which the honorable member for Perth and others are supposed to protect. But the honorable member for Perth is a member of the

Liberal Party. He sits in this place and does what he is told by a lawyer - in this case, the Attorney-General.

Mr Chaney:

– What clause is under discussion?

Mr CURTIN:

– Your claws should be clipped, and this Parliament should clip the claws of the Attorney-General. I am referring to clause 9.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honorable gentleman keeps attacking the Attorney-General his own claws will be clipped.

Mr CURTIN:

– Thank you, Sir. It is noticeable that every time I rise, you fly to the protection of the Attorney-General - a poor, puny little person who needs the protection of the Chairman in committee. I never claim the protection of the Chair. I am quite able to look after myself. The calibre of the Attorney-General is evident when he has to appeal to the Chair for protection. We know that these corporation lawyers are wealthy in the extreme. The huge corporations - newspapers, radio and television - which are appearing at the television inquiry are represented by persons of the ilk of the Attorney-General, whose private office in Phillip-street, Sydney, was recently renovated at the taxpayers’ expense. I would not suggest that any preparations will be made in that office by the Attorney-General, in conjunction with his confreres, to assist the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or the corporations which will appeal to this board; but we find, on the one hand, that the big monopolies and corporations escape all sorts of penalties that they should be suffering, while the petty criminal who cannot afford 200 guineas for leading counsel or 50 guineas for a junior or even 10 guineas for a lesser light, goes to gaol. That is why the gaols are full.

Thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Chairman. Although I suffered at your hands last night, I am very happy to-day with your tolerance. The Attorney-General, and any Minister of the Crown, should be open to criticism by any honorable member in this Parliament. I claim the right at all times to speak my mind, and I have plenty of courage to do it. I am not like honorable members on the Government side who. when the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) says “ stop “, they stop. I have the courage to do what I came here to do - to criticize even one of the highest in the land, the Attorney-General. I speak on behalf of 46,000 electors in the electorate of Kingsford-Smith because they expect me to do so. While this Parliament continues to function, we of the Labour Party will at all times express the opinions of the little people.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

.- I have been moved by the fantasies of the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) to intervene in the debate for only one minute. If my memory serves me correctly, about the year 1625 a parliament known as the “ Bare Bones parliament “ decided to reduce the law - to use its phrase - to the bigness of a pocket book; to eliminate all legal representation, and to abolish all lawyers. May I say that it was left to the bonehead Opposition in this Parliament to resume the debate on that proposal after three centuries.

Progress reported.

page 1957

SECURITY

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– by leave - As a result of something which was said during the debate on the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill, and as a result of a report which appeared later in newspapers, a member of the staff of this Parliament came under suspicion as being a secret agent who interfered with letters and other documents in the rooms of members of the Parliament. It is true that neither during the debate nor in the report was the name of this man mentioned, but he was identified as a cleaner and, of course, when he was subsequently interrogated by officers of the Joint House Department, it became known among his fellow employees that he was the man under suspicion.

Without seeking to contravert in any way the fears that honorable members may hold that their correspondence or files are being interfered with, I want to say that having known this man and his wife for eleven years since they came to Australia, I have complete faith in his honesty and a complete belief that he is in no way to blame for having interfered with correspondence or anything else in the offices of honorable members.

This man came with his wife from another land in which he had lost his home and all his possessions, and in which, indeed, he had occupied a material position much higher than he is able to gain in this country because of his advancing years. He has taken part in community life and, in my view, he is a completely trustworthy man - a man with whom I would trust my life or anything that I possess.

The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard), who was mentioned in connexion with this matter, has had to leave Canberra to return to duties in his electorate, but he has asked me to say that while he still holds the belief that some interference with documents in his office has taken place, he has been completely assured, from further inquiries which he has made, that the man on whom suspicion had fallen was in fact innocent. He has asked me to say that had he been here he would have sought to make a personal explanation, to clear this particular employee of the Parliament of the suspicion which has been cast upon him.

I hope that what I have said now will have the effect of removing from this man the stigma that has fallen on him.

page 1957

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1960

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 8); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 13); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

.- I move- [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That, in the Schedule to these Proposals, “ proclamation “ mean a proclamation by the GovernorGeneral, or the person for the time being administering the Government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eight day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 8).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 13).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1939, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-eighth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) 1960 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the twentieth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. THE SCHEDULE. Omit from column 1 " 140 (a) ", insert " 137 (a) (3) ". **Mr. Chairman,** the tariff proposals which I have tabled relate to proposed amendments to the schedules to the Customs Tariff 1933-1.959, the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1959, the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1959, and the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference)1960. The alterations now proposed will have effect as from to-morrow morning. They arise from the Government's consideration of reports of the Tariff Board on - {:#subdebate-27-2} #### Embroideries Transformers and induction coils. Metal foils. {:#subdebate-27-3} #### Footwear Alternating current induction type motors. Products of copper and other metals. Piezo electric crystal blanks. Oil or spirit heating lamps and parts. Portable electric hand tools and nibbling machines. Hacksaw blades. Radio and television equipment. Colours and dyes and paint boxes completely fitted. Textiles of man-made fibres. Optical lenses and other optical elements, magnifying glasses, telescopic sights for weapons, image projectors and slide viewers. I shall table the board's reports on these subjects at a later stage. A revised tariff structure has been adopted for non-ferrous metals and their alloys. There are alterations in the duties applying to various copper and copper alloy products in order to ensure that the protection which is given to these products will not become ineffective if the world price of copper falls to particularly low levels. Honorable members will recall that the production of copper in Australia is assisted by means of a bounty and that import duty only becomes payable on imported primary copper when the world copper price falls below £275 per ton. Complementary amendments have been made, on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, in the duties applying to copper and copper alloys in certain more advanced stages of manufacture. In addition to providing protection to Australian manufacturers against drastic price variations in the price of primary copper, there are some other adjustments to the duties on copper products, based on the Tariff Board's recommendations. The duties on other non-ferrous metals and nonferrous alloys have not been varied. Increased protection is proposed for magnet winding wire and for certain insulated electric cables. Concerning aluminium foil, provision has been made on the Tariff Board's recommendation for the introduction of protective duties of 15 per cent. British preferential tariff and 22) per cent, most-favoured-nation tariff on a date to be proclaimed. Aluminium foil is at present not protected in the customs tariff. Australian production of aluminium foil is scheduled to begin in the near future. The level of protection on static transformers has been reviewed, and protective duties will now cover a wider range of locally manufactured transformers than has previously been the case. Protection is extended particularly in the range from 66.000 volts to 220,000 volts. A new tariff item is being introduced to give protection to the embroidery industry. The rates of duty which will apply to the range of embroidery work produced in Australia are 10 per cent. British preferential tariff and 17) per cent, mostfavourednation tariff. The duties applying to alternating current induction type motors have been revised to extend the protection to certain motors in the higher horse-power ranges, principally from 150 horse-power to 550 horse-power, which have not so far been protected. The manufacture of these larger motors in Australia has begun since the industry was last reviewed by the Tariff Board. There has been a comprehensive revision of the tariff items dealing with the products of the radio and television industry which, as honorable members well know, has expanded greatly in recent years. Protection has been extended to a wider range of electronic equipment, particularly transmitting, radar and navigational aid apparatus, and the tariff has been rewritten to take cognizance of the vast technological changes which have occurred since the items were last reviewed. The basic level of protection for this industry has been determined at 27) per cent. British preferential tariff and 45 per cent, otherwise. On the recommendation of the Tariff Board there has been a revision of the tariff on footwear. The most important changes are for increased protection on thong sandals and on rubber or plastic soled footwear with leather uppers. The duties on portable electric hand tools, other than electric drills, have not been greatly changed. However, the rates of duty on electric hand portable i-in. drills have been increased from 12i per cent. British preferential tariff and 25 per cent, most-favoured-nation tariff to the same level as those applying to most other portable electric hand tools - which will now be 20 per cent. British preferential tariff and 32) per cent, mostfavourednation tariff. This entails a reduction of 2) per cent, on the most-favoured-nation rate. Following the recent Tariff Board inquiry, the rates of duty on pressure operated oil or spirit heating lamps have been increased by 7i per cent., while the rates on other oil or spirit heating lamps have been reduced by *2i* per cent. The duties on woven man-made fibre fabrics are being increased by approximately ls. per square yard. They will now be 2s. 6d. per square yard British preferential tariff and 2s. 8)d. per square yard mostfavourednational tariff. In addition the range of goods covered by the protective tariff item will be broadened considerably to take in certain mixture fabrics which have not previously been protected. In future the protective duties will apply to fabrics containing 20 per cent, or more of man-made fibres, whereas up to the present the protective duties have applied only to fabrics containing more than 50 per cent, of manmade fibres. Quilted fabrics containing such woven piece goods are included in the protective field. I turn now to optical lenses and other optical elements. The Tariff Board has recommended that no increase in duty be made on optical lenses, but has recommended that protective duties be imposed on telescopic sights for weapons. The new duties on telescopic sights are 27½ per cent. British preferential tariff and 45 per cent. otherwise. Increased protection is being granted on certain organic colours, namely toluidine red, para red, lithol red, rubine toner, lake red C and hansa yellow. A reduction of 5 per cent. is proposed on chrome colours. The duties on chrome colours and on the organic colours I have mentioned, will now be 25 per cent. British preferential tariff and 37½ per cent. mostfavourednation tariff. Increased protection is also being granted on water colours in tubes in order to give protection to Australian manufacturers against low-cost competition. On hacksaw blades there has been a change. Duties of 10 per cent. British preferential tariff and 17½ per cent. mostfavourednation tariff are being imposed on power hacksaw blades. These goods have previously been admitted at concessional rates under customs by-law. Honorable members will recall that for reasons explained at the relevant time, emergency actions were taken last year to safeguard Australian manufacturers of footwear, water colours, and man-made fibre piece goods as interim measures pending reports by the Tariff Board. Briefly, special licensing measures were applied to footwear and water colours as from 1st April, 1959, and 1st August, 1959, respectively and the Japanese Government agreed, at our request to control the volume of exports of manmade fibre piece goods to Australia. The Tariff Board has now reported on these three industries and the tariff proposals which I have just tabled give effect to the recommendations made by the Board. The special measures taken last year are therefore being discontinued. The amendments made in the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals, the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals and the Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Proposals are complementary to certain of the customs tariff changes I have already outlined. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1984 {:#debate-28} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-28-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following items: - >Radio and television equipment. {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Embroideries Transformers and induction coils. {:#subdebate-28-1} #### Footwear Alternating current induction type motors. Products of copper and other metals. Piezoelectric crystal blanks. Metal foils. Oil or spirit heating lamps and parts. Portable electric hand tools and nibbling machines. Hacksaw blades. Colours and dyes and paint boxes completely fitted. Optical lenses and other optical elements, magnifying glasses, telescopic sights for weapons, image projectors and slide viewers. Textiles of man-made fibres. Iron and steel hoop and strip. Marine diesel engines exceeding 500 horsepower. Tinned iron and steel plates and sheets. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1984 {:#debate-29} ### BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1960 In Committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 1957). Clauses 6 to 20. {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- First, I want to thank the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bandidt)** for giving me the opportunity of clarifying something that I said in my earlier remarks relating to this part of the bill. I want to assure the committee that when I was criticizing certain members of the legal profession, I did not intend that criticism to apply to everybody practising in that profession. I have some very good friends who are very able members of the legal profession. But the honorable member for Wide Bay reduced the matter to a personal basis, so, with your permission, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I should like to refer briefly to that matter again. The honorable member for Wide Bay said he wanted to ask the honorable member for East Sydney whether he had ever had occasion to engage a lawyer and whether that lawyer had been successful in keeping him out of gaol. Let me put the honorable member for Wide Bay right immediately. I did have occasion to seek the aid of a lawyer, and I obtained the services of a gentleman who I believe is pre-eminent in his profession in this country. Of course, he had a very easy task, because it is not a very difficult matter to defend successfully a person who is completely innocent. If the honorable member for Wide Bay would obtain from the Clerk of Papers a copy of the report submitted by the royal commission which inquired into certain matters relating to the timber industry in New Guinea, he would see that **Sir George** Ligertwood, a judge who was appointed by an anti-Labour government to the Supreme Court of South Australia, said in his findings' something of which I am very proud. He said that he had no reason to doubt any word of the evidence given by the honorable member for East Sydney. I suggest that if the honorable member for Wide Bay is ever placed in circumstances under which his life has to be examined, as mine was for a number of weeks, he will not come out of it quite as successfully as I did. When I spoke of the gaols being full as a result of the efforts of some lawyers, I had in mind the experience I had gained over many years in this Parliament of people who were unsuccessful in their profession and who then decided to enter politics. Let me say finally that, although I was completely innocent with respect to the matters that were suggested against me on the occasion to which I have referred, I am quite certain that if I had retained the services of the honorable member for Wide Bay, then, as innocent as I was, it is probable that I would have finished up in gaol. I come now to clause 13, which seeks to amend section 26 of the principal act. I move - >After paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - " (aa) by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words, ' and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank,'; and ". If those words are deleted, it will mean that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will Be obliged to do all its banking with the Commonwealth Bank. In my opinion, this proposal will test whether, honorable members on the Government side really favour this great national institution. I do not propose to take long in debating this point, because I think it should be apparent to every member of the Parliament that this great organization should be supported. I emphasize that the Commonwealth Bank has made good profits ever since its establishment. Of course, the Labour Government which established the Commonwealth Bank was not worried about it making losses. The aim was to give the people a bank that would give them real service. It was not our purpose that the Commonwealth Bank should make enormous profits; our purpose was to cut down interest rates and to give good, efficient general banking services to the community. If, as a result of sabotage, this bank makes losses, those losses will have to be made good by the taxpayers of Australia. In my opinion, it is a part of the duties of the members of this Commonwealth Parliament to protect the taxpayers and to protect the people's institution. I submit, therefore, that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should do all its business with the Government banking organization. The same thing applies with respect to other Government instrumentalities. For instance, the Government should be giving all of its airways business to Trans-Australia Airlines. My amendment seeks to provide that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall transact all its banking business with the Commonwealth Bank. The PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** may argue that all of the board's business is being done with the Commonwealth Bank now, but that is not the point. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- I agree that it is not the point. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- While we are dealing with this measure, we should make certain that all the banking business of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is done through the national organization, the Commonwealth Bank. I hope that, in addition to the members of the Labour Party, all other honorable members who believe in this great organization will, by their support, indicate that they agree with the amendment which- 1 have: now proposed. {: #debate-29-s1 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- I think we should analyse what has been said by the honorable member for Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** in order to ascertain what are the objectives of the Labour Party. First, let me say, that this proposal has been submitted in a very mild manner by the honorable member. It must be admitted that this mild approach is totally different from his attitude last night. When he more or less apologized to the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bandidt)** just now, he was a changed man. I only hope that this change for the better will be permanent. When he apologized to the honorable member for Wide Bay and said, " I did not mean anything personal ", the honorable member for East Sydney was absolutely moderate. We all know that he can be most vicious in his criticism, not only of a man's character, but also of his physical appearance, and no man of reasonable intelligence and uprightness can countenance that. I come now to the honorable members proposal. He proposes that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board shall be compelled to bank with the Commonwealth Bank. That is straight-out compulsion. Of course, the Labour Party believes that not only the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but every organization and person in Australia should be compelled to bank with the Commonwealth Bank. I am confident that, given the opportunity to bring down legislation affecting the working conditions and the freedom which the people of Australia enjoy, the Labour Party would legislate, amongst other things to provide that everyone in Australia must bank with the Commonwealth Bank. If any one doubts my suggestion, I remind him of the Labour Government's attempt to introduce nationalization of banking, which had that very purpose. I am a great believer in freedom of choice. I know that circumstances alter from time to time, and I feel that if we made it a hard and fast rule that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should bank with the Commonwealth Bank, all sorts of complexities and complications might develop which would not be in the best interest of the proper functioning of that board. I do 'not think the honorable member for East Sydney is really sincere: in" ''proposing this amendment. I do not doubt his general personal sincerity, but I feel that on this occasion he is not sincere. I say that for two or three reasons. I do not know, but the Minister might accept the amendment. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- You obviously do not know. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I would not expect the Minister to accept the amendment. If he did accept it and it came to a vote, I would vote against him. I am a great believer in a member sticking to his party, but if anything ever happened which had the support of the Australian Country Party and of the Government but which my conscience would not allow me to support, I would not vote for it. I say this not only to the Opposition, but also to my party and to the Government. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- Show me in " Hansard " where you have voted against the Country Party. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I shall put a proposition to the honorable member for Reid, and he can answer by interjection, if he wants to. {: #debate-29-s2 .speaker-JWV} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! I think the honorable member should keep to the amendment and not argue with the honorable member for Reid. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Will the honorable member for Reid come with me after I have finished speaking so that I can get " Hansard " and show him? If I am correct, will he apologize to the House? {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- All right, he will. I do not want to take up any more time on this subject. I want to reveal only that this new-found quality in the honorable member for East Sydney in more or less saying to the honorable member for Wide Bay that he is sorry is only a temporary expedient to make us think that he is not a bad fellow after all, and I believe that that is the true position. I do not need to tell the House again of my experience when I went up in an aeroplane with the honorable member for East Sydney. I had been a member of the Parliament for about six years and, although I had said " Good day " to him; he had not spoken to me. One day we sat next to each other on a flight to Melbourne and he spoke to me in a very friendly way. But then he did not speak to me again for at least two years. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! That has nothing to do with the clauses we are considering. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- As honorable members will readily understand, I do not support the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney. However, some day, if he puts forward a reasonable proposition, he may have even my support. {: #debate-29-s3 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Reid .- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** The amendment is quite specific. The Australian Country Party professes to give great support to the Commonwealth Bank, but we were shown how much its support is worth when the banking legislation was recently before the Parliament. Under pressure from Liberal backbenchers, particularly the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler),** the legislation was amended to allow the private banking interests to be agents for the new Commonwealth Development Bank. We know that for years the former leader of the Australian Country Party, **Sir Arthur** Fadden, opposed any move to break down the conditions of the Commonwealth Bank. If the Australian Country Party is consistent, it will on this occasion support the amendment. Honorable members opposite say that the board now banks with the Commonwealth Bank. But we want to introduce a binding provision so that a change cannot be made. We do not want a repetition of the move led by the honorable member for Mitchell to give the private banks an advantage. This Government has been breaking down the conditions under which the Commonwealth Bank operates, splitting it and dividing it. We know that the Commonwealth Bank stood by the farmers during the depression years. The honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr.** Brimblecombe) should be on his feet supporting the amendment. It does not matter what we do. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** is a big bag of wind; he gets up and belts- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! I ask the honorable member to withdraw that expression. It is unparliamentary language. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN: -- I withdraw. Members of the Australian Country Party owe much to the Commonwealth Bank, and they should support the Opposition's amendment. The amendment states a correct principle. We do not want a repetition of what happened with the banking legislation, so that a change could be made to private banking. If the statement that the board now banks with the Commonwealth Bank is correct, provision for this to be done could well be made in the bill. It is necessary to have such a provision in the bill; if it is not there, then, when the Parliament is in recess and everything is nice and quiet, they can slip in and do business with the private banks. If members of the Australian Country Party are consistent, they will support the amendment moved by the Opposition. {: #debate-29-s4 .speaker-JMF} ##### Mr ASTON:
Phillip .- This afternoon and last night, in this chamber, we have had an exposition of stonewalling and filibustering, which does no credit to the Australian Labour Party. This has been led - well,I am not sure who has led it. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** led the debate for the Opposition, as the official spokesman, but since then the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has taken the business completely out of his hands and out of the hands of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** They have not even put in an appearance in the chamber during the last couple of hours. For the sake of clarity, I would want to know whether the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney is an official amendment of the Labour Party and has the support of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, or whether this is just another attempt by the honorable member for East Sydney to vent his personal spleen at being defeated in the election for deputy leader and to undermine the authority of the duly elected leader and deputy leader of the Australian Labour Party. Labour is now giving us the old cries about banking. We know that nationalization is a plank of its platform. We also heard the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart),** this afternoon, say that the board should be compelled to bank with the Commonwealth Bank. The amendment is so much poppycock. We know that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board already banks with the Reserve Bank of Australia, as do many other Commonwealth departments. But we on this side of the chamber believe in private enterprise. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition again emphasized that he wanted nationalization of television. We know that honorable members opposite want to nationalize the banks, the airlines and the press. These public institutions, which are now relatively free, have been attacked by the Labour Party in an effort to make them accept nationalization, and if Labour ever again becomes the government of the country, it will nationalize these institutions. The nationalization of all four of these institutions that I have mentioned is in line with Communist thinking. Opposition members may try to laugh it off, if they wish; but these four matters are in line with Communist thinking, and it is the policy that the honorable member for East Sydney exploits at all times. Here, in what appears to be a somewhat timid amendment, we find him using the plank of nationalization to compel a government instrumentality to bank with the Commonwealth Bank. If he succeeds in having the amendment accepted, and thus creating a precedent, the principle will be extended to the whole of the Commonwealth Government, State government and local government instrumentalities by these people opposite, and this will give considerable support to their plea for the nationalization of banking. They will then be able to control at will many of the activities that they want to get their hands on. Reverting to my original statement, 1 should like to know who is in charge of the Labour Party in this chamber at the present time. Who is its real leader and who, in effect, sponsored this amendment? Honorable members should know these things before they vote so that the position may be clarified. It is important for members on this side and also for Labour supporters to be informed whether this amendment has the blessing of the leaders of the Labour Party. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition come into the chamber; perhaps he may be able to tell us whether this amendment has the support of the Labour Party. {: #debate-29-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The Leader of the Opposition is not mentioned in the amendment or in any clause in the bill. The honorable member should relate his remarks to the matter before the Chair. {: .speaker-JMF} ##### Mr ASTON: -- This amendment should be rejected by the Government, as it will be, for the simple reason that it is sheer humbug and hypocrisy for the honorable member for East Sydney to put forward a proposal of this kind. Members on this side know that the private banks of this country have done a great service, as also has the Commonwealth Bank. We believe in fair competition in all spheres in the business community. Through fair competition the people are given superior service. That is the case with the airlines, which honorable members opposite would like to nationalize, and also with television which the Leader of the Opposition last night reiterated he wanted to nationalize. For my part I readily reject the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney. It will be interesting to hear whether it has the support of the Leader of the Opposition and whether it was moved with his consent and also that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** It appears to me that the honorable member for East Sydney is seizing every opportunity to revive his vendetta against the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his own particular purposes. {: #debate-29-s6 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- I have been brought, somewhat unwittingly and unwillingly into this discussion. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** having been ruled out of order by the Chair, sought the only means by which he could put his views to the committee on the matter of private banks, after several speakers on the Government side had not merely adumbrated the subject, but also roamed all over the field. The honorable member for East Sydney is entitled to put his view, which I share, that government instrumentalities should do their banking with the Commonwealth Bank. That was stated in the original Commonwealth Bank Act of 1911, but this Government altered that law some time ago to give the private banks a share of the business. The PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** made a speech defending that position and the honorable member for East Sydney wished to attack that very proposition. I believe that the people's money, whether it is controlled by municipalities, semi-government or State or Commonwealth government authorities ought to be banked in the best bank of all, as the honorable member for McPherson **(Mr. Barnes)** contended. That, obviously, is the people's bank - the Commonwealth Bank - whose profits go straight to the funds of the Commonwealth. That is the argument in favour of the honorable member's amendment. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- The people gave a clear mandate on that matter in 1949. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- If the honorable member, who is the chairman of committees, were in the chair and I interjected he would rule me out of order, but because he is not in the chair he seeks to interrupt me. He is setting a bad example to other honorable members as his conduct is quite disorderly. The matter is clear. We wish to emphasize our view that the Commonwealth Bank ought to hold all the accounts of government instrumentalities and be responsible for all the financial transactions of all government bodies and that includes the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. {: #debate-29-s7 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Canning .- I will not detain the committee unduly. It is quite clear that the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** is seeking to take charge of the Labour Party in this debate and that he is also trying to take charge of the business of the committee by taking it out of the hands of the two Ministers sitting at the table. In 1949, the Government parties were given a clear mandate by a large majority of the people of Australia. We were elected to prevent the nationalization of banking and to make it possible for everybody to bank with whatever bank they desired. In 1953 section 26 of the Broadcasting and Television Act was amended to make it possible for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to bank not only with the Reserve Bank, as it is now called, but also with any other bank if it wished. As the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** has quite plainly pointed out, the board is already banking with the Commonwealth Bank. This afternoon we have observed the stone-walling tactics of the honorable member for East Sydney and some of those on the Opposition side who are assisting him. They are trying to delay the passage of this legislation through Parliament. If we allow that to go on, instead of the Minister being in charge of the bill we will find members of the Opposition taking control. This matter could be resolved very quickly, seeing that the Government parties have had an overwhelming majority since 1949. It was on the banking issue that the Labour Party was so ignominiously defeated at that time. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** asks why municipalities should not bank where they wish. Surely he has not forgotten the admirable case conducted in the High Court by the Melbourne City Council which resulted in a defeat for the late **Mr. Chifley.** I remind members of the Opposition that the Minister could easily move that the question be put. I do not relish such action, but obviously the committee will reject the amendment. The Government parties have a majority here because, as I have already said, they received an overwhelming mandate in 1949 to carry out banking reforms; and they have done so. Honorable members on this side are consistent because at every opportunity government instrumentalities bank with the Commonwealth Bank. But in cases where that instrumentality is not available, should we be so foolish as to put our heads in the sand and say, "We will not bank with anybody because there is no Commonwealth Bank available " and put the money in a tin and bury it? I suggest, sincerely and frankly, to the Minister that as the Opposition is obviously playing a game designed to delay the passage of this measure, he should move that the question be put. {: #debate-29-s8 .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN:
Kingston .- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** It was a change to hear the speech just delivered by the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton).** One has become used to the honorable member for Canning always putting up a forceful and constructive argument in this chamber; but what a contrast his speech was to that of the assistant Government Whip, the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Aston)** who rose hysterically in his place, threw his arms about, and in desperation tried to turn this debate from an examination of the legislation into an attack on the Labour Party. I hope he is convinced by the statement by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** that this party is 100 per cent. behind the amendment. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- I wish to take a point of order, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** I should like to direct your attention to Standing Order No. 87, which lists the matters that are not open to debate. The final paragraph reads - >Should any of these questions be negatived, no similar proposal shall be received within a quartet of an hour and no similar proposal shall be received if the Speaker or the Chairman is of opinion that it is an abuse of the orders or forms of the House, or is moved for the purpose of obstructing business. I direct your attention to the fact that Leader of the Opposition himself said that this amendment was moved for the express purpose of allowing the honorable member for East Sydney to get round a ruling given by the Chair that he could not, under the terms of the bill before the House, initiate a full-scale debate on the banking issue. For that reason, **Sir, and** for that reason only, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this amendment was moved. In other words, the amendment has been moved for the purpose of obstructing business, and for that reason I suggest that the amendment is out of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- The amendment is quite in order. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- I think the merits are with the honorable member, and I put the question to the House. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- You put what question? {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- That the question be now put. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** If the " Hansard " report is now read to the committee you will find that the Treasurer has not moved anything. What he said in effect- {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- If I have not moved anything, I move now - >That the question be now put. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- My ruling is that the question before the committee is that the question be now put. {: .speaker-K97} ##### Mr Galvin: -- This is the Communist technique of denying people the right to speak. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- You are using the Communist technique of damaging democracy. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The committee will come to order, and I warn the honorable member for Kingston and the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith to moderate their behaviour. Is a division required on the motion? Opposition members. - Yes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- The committee will divide. Ring the bells.I warn honorable members that during a division the Chair still has power to act in relation to unruly conduct. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- I warn the honorable member for KingsfordSmith that toleration can be extended too far to some honorable members on both sides. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- I was only trying to ask a question. Question put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.) AYES: 57 NOES: 33 Majority . . . . 24 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the amendment **(Mr. Ward's)** be agreed to. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. F. C. Chaney.) AYES: 33 NOES: 60 Majority . . . . 27 AYES NOES {: #debate-29-s9 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am sorry that in my earlier speech 1 was not able to finish all that 1 have to say about the clauses with which we are now dealing. I wanted to get some clarification from the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** of the meaning of clause 17 which alters section 43 of the principal act by omitting sub-sections 4 to 7 inclusive, and inserting in their stead new sub-sections 4, 5 and 6. The principal act provides - >A person shall not be admitted to the service of the Commission unless - > >he is a natural-born or naturalized British subject;- But the bill substitutes the words - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . unless - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. he is a British subject; The words " natural-born or naturalized " are left out. I am a bit curious about this. I do not suggest that there is anything very sinister in it. However, we have a very skilful lawyer now as Attorney-General and we become rather curious about any little change that is made because we never know what fine High Court application it may have or in what way it may be related to some very technical case in the Privy Council. So the Government must not misunderstand us when we seek clarification on all these little points which, though appearing quite harmless and innocent on the surface, may have hidden away some rather different meaning. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- It is simpler wording, that is all. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I accept the Minister's assurance. I take it that the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** has explained to him that that is all that there is in it. If the Minister is only relying on his own knowledge of law his assurance would not count for very much. So I take it for granted that he is now basing his statement on information supplied to him by the Attorney-General, and I accept the statement. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is right. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Now I come to another rather curious alteration of which I would like some explanation. The principal act says - >A person shall not be admitted to the service of the Commission unless ... the Commission is satisfied, upon such medical examination as is prescribed, as to his health and physical fitness; The bill, for some reason which is not apparent from reading it, says - a person shall not be appointed to the service of the Commission unless ... the Commission is satisfied as to his health and physical fitness; The committee can see the subtle difference. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has to be satisfied. When this bill is passed, there will be no need for a person to pass a medical examination as is now required by the principal act. I do not know just what is the significance of this. Perhaps the Minister could tell me briefly now. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- It is simply a matter of conciseness and drafting. That is all it is. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is hardly a matter of conciseness, because there is a substantial and basic difference between a person being required to satisfy the commission, by the production of a medical certificate, that he is physically fit, and being required to satisfy the commissions without the production of a medical certificate, that he is physically fit. I take it that the commission consists wholly df men who have no medical qualifications. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is so, but if the commission wants to be satisfied, it will naturally have a person medically examined. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is the very point - if the commission wants to be satisfied. The commission, having relied upon its members' knowledge of physiology, may decide to appoint a person who later becomes entitled to superannuation benefits by virtue of becoming a permanent employee of the Commonwealth. In, say, five or six years, he may be invalided out of the service and become a charge on the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund for the rest of his life. This could happen because the Australian Broadcasting Commission had been permitted, by the terms of proposed new sub-section (4.) of section 43 of the principal act, to engage him without first satisfying itself, by the production of a medical certificate, that he was fit to become a member of the Superannuation Fund. If the kind of situation that I have described can arise, the matter is serious. I do not know whether the Minister has thought of the possible effects on the Superannuation Fund of permitting the employment of a person not required to pass a medical test as are other people in the Public Service. On the other hand - and 'this is important - I should accept the proposed provision completely and congratulate the Government on it if its purpose were to permit the employment of physically handicapped people - people who have the mental capacity to do the job and whose only crime, if one may use such an absurd term iri this context, is a physical affliction. If that were the purpose of this proposed provision, I should say that there was nothing wrong with it. But I should like to know whether that is contemplated. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is not the intention of the proposed new sub-section. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Then I am a little bewildered. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- The honorable member is being a little inconsistent. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I do not see how. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- In one breath, the honorable member says that he wants to be sure that a person's fitness is established by medical examination. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Yes, but a person can be physically handicapped without his condition affecting his life span in any way. A person may have a damaged leg or legs and his health may be so good in all other respects as to ensure that he will live as long as or perhaps longer than will most other people. Indeed, the very nature of a person's physical handicap may help him to live much longer than a person not so handicapped would live. So the Minister really has not the strong point on that aspect of the problem that he perhaps imagines he has. As I have said, the proposed alteration of the principal act is rather a curious one, and we are entitled to have it clarified. I find in proposed new sub-section (4.) of section 43 of the act another provision which the Attorney-General would no doubt be able to explain, although I think that the Postmaster-General would find the explanation a little beyond his capacity to make, as, indeed, I should myself. The existing sub-section (4.) of section 43 provides - >A person shall not be admitted to the service of the Commission unless - (a) > >he makes and subscribes an oath or affirmation in accordance with the prescribed form. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Why does the honorable member not read the dictionary, too? He is just filibustering. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- If my learned friend will just compose himself in patience until I finish what I am saying, he will see that it would not be possible to obtain from a dictionary an explanation of these matters. The wording of paragraph (d) of the existing sub-section (4.) of section 43 of the act is to be altered considerably. The proposed new sub-section provides - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. person shall not be appointed to the service of the Commission unless - (a) {: type="a" start="d"} 0. he makes and subscribes, before a Justice of the Peace or a Commissioner for taking affidavits, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in accordance with the form in the Schedule to the Constitution. I thinkI can suggest the reason for this. The explanation may be that the AttorneyGeneral is merely tidying up what, in the past, has been very poor draftsmanship in all the acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, because, in most Commonwealth acts, this kind of provision appears in the form contained in the principal act. If that is the explanation, I accept it. {: #debate-29-s10 .speaker-KIH} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-29-s11 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Smith · Kingsford -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I am very much concerned about a number of clauses in this bill. However, I should like to deal particularly with the banking of public moneys. First, I should like an assurance from the Postmaster-General that public moneys will be banked in a bank which will safeguard them at all times. There is no need for the Minister to appear so anxious. I have in mind the bank crash which occurred in the 1890's. Already, about 890,000 television licences have been issued at £5 each. This represents quite a lot of public money which belongs to the citizens of Australia, and I am anxious to know what would happen to it in the event of a bank crash if it were deposited in a private bank. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member is getting a little outside the clauses which are now before the committee. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I want an assurance on this point. The money that I have paid for my television licence is involved, and I should like to know where it is going. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! This has nothing to do with the clauses now being considered by the committee. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- With all due respects, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I rise to order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for KingsfordSmith will resume his seat for the moment. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- But I wish to take a point of order, **Sir.** The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.A point of order is already before the Chair. I ask the honorable member to resume his seat for the moment. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- On the point of order, **Mr. Temporary** Chairman: I understand that the committee is still considering clauses 6 to 20 inclusive. Among those clauses is one which will amend section 26 of the principal act. That section provides for the banking of the funds of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Surely the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith is quite in order in dealing with the safeguarding of those funds when he discusses clause 13. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member moved an amendment which would have added a new subclause at the end of clause 13. That amendment was defeated. The clause provides for the substitution of the words " Reserve Bank " in place of the words "Commonwealth Bank" in sub-section (1.) of section 26 of the act, and the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith is not in order in embarking on a general debate on banking, because an amendment relating to the subject-matter of banking has been before the committee and has been defeated. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I would like to obtain an assurance from the Postmaster-General about the money that is collected. The Post Office conducts agencies of the Commonwealth Bank. It also collects licences for television viewing, which cost £5 each a year, and radio licences. Under the terms of this bill, the Postal Department which conducts Commonwealth Bank agencies can take the money it collects across the road to a private bank. I am concerned also about the safety of this money which belongs to the taxpayers, some of whom are my electors. When I report to them in the recess, they will want to know these things and I want a definite assurance. Is the public money being safeguarded, bearing in mind what happened in the 1890's and led the Labour Party to establish the Commonwealth Bank? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I have already ruled that the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith has ventured into a wider sphere than that covered by the clause which is now before the committee. I ask the honorable member to contain his remarks within the clause that is under consideration. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- All I want is an assurance from the Postmaster-General. What are the safeguards over the money that is collected from the people? If the Minister does not want to put it in the Commonwealth Bank, let him take it to the Treasury and deposit it there. I am prepared to accept an assurance from the Minister that that will be done. We know that there is a lot of private money running wild in the community. I want an assurance that public money is deposited either in the Commonwealth Bank or the Treasury. When the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** collects our taxes, he does not run to the private banks with it. I do not see why money collected for television licences by the Post Office and its agencies should not be so deposited. We have no guarantee that the money will be safeguarded. There seems to be something sinister here when a Minister of the Crown is not prepared to safeguard the money of the taxpayers. If the Minister will give me an assurance, I will sit down. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- Then sit down. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- That is all very well. If you give me the assurance I have sought, I will sit down. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- Sit down and I will give you the assurance. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- What sinister motive have you in not protecting the public money? If you are not prepared to protect the £5,000,000 that has been paid over in television licence fees during the past twelve months, you are not a fit and proper person to be a Minister of the Crown. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! I have reminded the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith too many times that this clause provides merely for the money to be deposited in the Commonwealth Bank or the Reserve Bank. The amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has already been rejected by the committee. I remind the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith of my previous ruling, and if he continues along the line he has been following I shall have to ask him to sit down. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I do not wish to undermine the prestige of the Chair in any way, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** I object to the clause which stipulates the Reserve Bank instead of the Commonwealth Bank in connexion with the accounts of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That is only a mistake made by some of our clever lawyers in drafting the bill. All I want is an assurance that public money is safeguarded. The absence of a promise by the PostmasterGeneral indicates that he has something to hide. What is he going to do with the money that has already been collected by the Postal Department? All I want is the tolerance of the Chair until I get an assurance from the Minister. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-29-s12 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- All I can say in reply to the recent outburst of the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr. Curtin)** is this: How silly can a man get? He has asked me whether I can guarantee that the money collected by the Post Office in television fees is safeguarded. Is the honorable member really so utterly ignorant that he does not know that all Post Office revenue, under the Constitution, automatically goes into the Treasury? {: #debate-29-s13 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland -- I should like to have some information about clause 17, which includes proposed amendments to section 43 of the principal act. The clause relates to the appointment of officers, and it incorporates some important amendments concerning employment of persons by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson),** who is a returned soldier, might well give attention to a problem which arises consistently concerning the employment of ex-servicemen. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I refer him to proposed new sub-section (4.) of section 43 under which certain provisions relating to naturalized British subjects will be deleted from the principal act. The bill provides that a non-British subject may be employed by the commission without being naturalized. I am not so deeply concerned with that, but proposed new sub-section (4.) b) relating to educational qualifications states that a person shall not be appointed to the service of the commission unless - >He possesses such educational qualifications, and such other qualifications (if any), as are determined by the Commission with the approval of the Public Service Board. In the past, under the principal act, the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself was the determining body. I direct attention now to proposed new sub-section (6.) because I want to see something done about the employment of ex-servicemen. I have already referred to the requirement which is contained in proposed new sub-section (5.) of section 43 of the principal act in relation to the employment of naturalized British subjects. Proposed new sub-section (6.). repeats the requirement contained in proposed new sub-section (4.) (b). It states - (6.) Subject to this Division, the terms and conditions of employment of officers and temporary employees appointed in pursuance of this section are such as are determined by the Commission with the approval of the Public Service Board. If the Public Service Board is to be given the right to lay down its requirements in relation to qualifications and the terms and conditions of employment, the Minister should have close regard for what happens to ex-servicemen who are employed in some sectors of the Public Service. At present, section 84 (8.) of the Public Service Act relating to returned soldiers is being completely disregarded. It states - >Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a returned soldier may be appointed to the Commonwealth Service- I emphasize the following words for the consideration of the Minister: - although not free from physical defects due to service in the war, if it is certified by a medical practitioner . . . that the soldier is free from such physical defects as would incapacitate him for the efficient discharge of the duties of the position to which he is to be appointed. Cases are repeatedly being brought to my attention of returned servicemen who have sat for the entrance examination, which is a requisite to permanent employment in the Public Service, being told that although they have produced the strongest medical evidence from doctors in Macquarie-street, Sydney, that they are suffering from no physical defect other than a war-caused disability, they cannot be employed in the service. In most of the cases, the returned servicemen have completed long periods of service without the loss of one day through illness. For those men to be denied their right to permanent employment in the Public Service because they suffer from a war-caused disability is completely wrong. These cases are occurring too frequently and the Postmaster-General - himself a returned soldier - will surely give the closest attention to this section of the act because the Public Service Board apparently is applying its interpretation to all exservicemen. The board is even taking from the Australian Broadcasting Commission the right to employ returned soldiers who, although they may be suffering from a warcaused disability, are competent to carry out the position to which they seek apointment. This is a tremendously important factor, to which the Minister should give his attention. The commission should have the right to employ its own staff. If the commission wishes to employ in a permanent position a returned serviceman who has a physical disability, it should have the right to do so. I have on my desk at present representations from three ex-servicemen in relation to this matter. Unfortunately, I have not yet had time to deal with the last one that I received. One returned soldier who has written to me has not lost a day's work in four years, but he has been refused permanent employment in the service. If the Public Service Board has the right in the future to lay down the conditions of employment of ex-servicemen in the Australian Broadcasting Commission, for goodness sake, if a man is denied permanent employment on medical grounds, let the board inform the man of the reasons why he cannot be employed. Every honorable member on the Government side, particularly returned servicemen, must surely realize the justice of my argument. I deliberately mentioned the Public Service Act when dealing with clause 17 to direct public attention to this problem which is confronting the returned servicemen. I am not a returned soldier for reasons which are pretty clearly defined, but when exservicemen, because of their war-caused disabilities, are denied permanent employment in the Public Service after having been engaged in a temporary capacity for three, four, five years and even longer without loss of any time, an obligation should be placed on the Public Service Board to state clearly in writing the reasons why the permanent appointment has been refused. If the Minister accepts my proposal, he will direct that if in the future the commission denies permanent employment to a returned serviceman who has suffered a war disability- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON: -- As no other honorable member has risen to seek the call, I shall now take the second period allowed to me. I have been waiting for a long time for an opportunity to ventilate this problem which is confronting an increasing number of ex-servicemen who are endeavouring to obtain permanent employment in the Public Service. If a returned soldier who is suffering from a war-caused disability is able to pass the necessary examinations, other than the medical examination; if he is in a temporary position from which he has not lost any time for any reason; and if the Public Service Board determines that he should not be appointed to a permanent position, I suggest that the Minister - I know the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** also will view my suggestion sympathetically - should insist that the man be informed in writing of the reasons why he has been refused appointment. At present, the Public Service Board has refused these men permanent appointment on medical grounds, obviously because of their war-caused disabilities, but it is not sufficient merely for the board or its officers to say to the ex-serviceman, " You have been failed for appointment ". He should be told in writing why he has been failed for appointment. He should be told the basis upon which the board has made its decision. If this were done, the returned serviceman would have the opportunity to take the medical report to his own medical advisers in an attempt to refute the reasons which have been given for his nonemployment. The board has failed in its bounden duty to these men. I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to conclude my remarks. This subject has been causing me a great deal of worry for a lengthy period. In my view the section of the act to which I have referred has been disregarded by the Public Service Board. Whether that is so or not, it is not for me to condemn, because I have not the full facts. However, I ask the Minister to insist that an ex-serviceman who is suffering a disability and is denied appointment to the commission be supplied with the details of the physical disability upon which the Public Service Board bases its decision. Clauses agreed to. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1997 {:#debate-30} ### INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1960 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 17th May (vide page 1763), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- The bill relates to a double taxation agreement between Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand. This will be the fourth double taxation agreement concluded by Australia, there being in existence already agreements with Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. As with the other three agreements, the purpose of the agreement contemplated by this measure is to obviate what is known as double taxation between the two countries concerned, arising from the facts that people who normally reside in Australia may derive income which has its origin in New Zealand and that people who normally reside in New Zealand may have income which has its origin in Australia. The usual practice is to regard income as being liable for taxation at its point of origin, and in countries that have progressive income tax structures it is reckoned that an individual's ability to pay taxation depends upon his total income, whether that income be derived internally or externally. In those circumstances, income which has been taxed already in the country of origin is added to the income of the individual concerned in his country of residence, and unless some abatement is made, injustice may arise. The purpose of this measure is to obviate such injustice. The main difference between Australia's relations in this connexion with New Zealand and the other countries with which documentary agreements have been concluded is that, by arrangement between the two countries, even though there has been no statutory double taxation agreement in force, an equitable system of avoiding some of the ill effects of double taxation has been put into operation by administrative arrangement. Broadly, the position has been that income derived from Australia by a resident of New Zealand has been subjected to taxation in Australia but has not been subject to taxation in New Zealand. Similarly, income earned in New Zealand by residents of Australia has attracted taxation in New Zealand, but that income, other than dividends, has not been included in the individual's Australian income. Income derived by way of dividends from New Zealand has been subjected to taxation in New Zealand and also has been included in the total taxable income of the Australian taxpayer, but he has been allowed a rebate according to the amount of tax deemed to have been paid in New Zealand. The principal effect of this legislation will be to authorize by statute what formerly was done by way of administrative arrangements between the two countries. There will also be a slight difference in connexion with the taxation paid by Australian residents upon dividends received from New Zealand companies. Income derived by Australian companies which conduct a fair proportion of their activities in New Zealand, while retaining their head-quarters on the mainland of Australia, has been arbitrarily taxed by the New Zealand authorities, and some inequities have arisen in connexion with the corresponding credit allowed in Australia. Double taxation agreements arise primarily from the investment by residents of one country in companies in another country which to them is foreign. To date, the pattern has been that there has been more investment by Canadians in Australia than by Australians in Canada; more investment by residents of the United States of America, either as individuals or companies, in Australia than by Australians in the United States of America; and far most investment by residents of the United Kingdom, either as individuals or companies, in Australia than by Australians in the United Kingdom. So far, these agreements have tended to favour the other countries, to the detriment of Australian revenue. In many instances, they have meant losses to Australian revenue and distinct benefits to individuals or companies resident in the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom. As Australia is a far greater economic unit than New Zealand, it might be thought by some that there is far more direct investment in New Zealand by Australians than there is in Australia by New Zealanders, but such statistics as are available show that this is not so. The latest figures I have been able to obtain are those published in " The Annual Bulletin of Overseas Investment, 1957-58- New Series No. 3 ". On pages 6 and 7 of that document are published details of the total paid-up value of shares, debentures, unsecured notes and other obligations of Australian companies held by overseas companies or individuals. The column relating to New Zealand shows that the aggregate amount of New Zealand investment in Australian companies was £32,500,000 as at 30th June, 1958. By contrast, the direct holdings of shares, debentures, unsecured notes and other obligations of Australian companies in New Zealand companies amounted to only £3,000,000. It seems that the major part of the advantage of even this taxation agreement will be to the New Zealand taxpayer rather than to the Australian taxpayer, except that perhaps a large part of the investment by New Zealanders in Aus tralia has been occasioned by the fact that such income, because it has been taxed in Australia, is exempt in New Zealand. Therefore, people with large incomes may have found some advantage in having what may be regarded in New Zealand as foreign investment rather than local investment. This highlights one of the difficulties we face when we come to determine the equity of these double taxation agreements. Often a large part of what is called foreign investment - that is, investment by residents of one country in another - is not occasioned primarily by economic interest in the country in which the investment is made, but rather by the attraction to the individuals concerned of the net profit, after taxation has been taken into account. This seems to me to be a rather odd sort of way to secure investment, but again it seems to be the pattern that is allowed to continue without any degree of alarm being felt by this Government. As we have pointed out in this House before, the Government is mainly concerned with the over-all balance of payments position rather than with the question of whether certain individuals resident outside this country may be starting to occupy in this country positions of great strategic importance, economically. I should like to direct the attention of honorable members to the difference between the attitude to this problem in Australia and the attitude recently expressed by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a sister dominion. The governor of that bank, **Mr. J.** E. Coyne, in his annual report for the year 1959, which bears the recent date of 29th February, 1960, directs attention to the serious position which he felt, as governor of the central bank, was arising in the Canadian economy because of foreign investment. I shall read from page 9 of the report. He said - >A more moderate approach to economic development on the part of all sections of the community, and more emphasis on a balanced industrial structure would also mean that Canadians would own a greater share in Canadian industry- He means that there is an unhealthy degree of foreign ownership of Canadian industry - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . that we would accumulate less debt to foreigners, and would have to bear a smaller burden of foreign debt service, which could one day become a very serious embarrassment in the event of a major decline in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar. We do not need to make our economy structurally dependent on our ability to obtain, or on other people's willingness to let us have, new supplies of foreign capital year after year on a vast and increasing scale. That seems to me to sum up very well the Canadian point of view. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr Bandidt: -- That is not the Canadian point of view. Their responsible Minister does not say that. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- No, but a responsible person does, and in this country the responsible person is the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** However, the Treasurer is oblivious to the evils that the Governor of the Bank of Canada sees. We as an Opposition feel that it is our duty to point out to the House what ought to be evident to those who are responsible for the economic destiny of Australia. We have done so over and over again and all that has happened is that greater and greater reliance is placed on foreign investment here. The emphasis again is rather on the willingness of people to lend, which, as I say, is not occasioned primarily by Australia's economic interest, but is occasioned by a consideration of whether, after taking into account agreements such as this double taxation agreement, it is prudent to invest here. When we considered the United Kingdom double taxation agreement some twelve months ago, I gave figures to the House that indicated that it paid investors in the United Kingdom in the high income brackets to invest in this country, not in pioneering economic development, but in buying into long-established Australian concerns. I suggest that basically that is the kind of investment by New Zealand in Australia at the moment. It is not primarily to Australia's benefit, but it is to the benefit of certain income groups and companies in New Zealand which, after taking into account that the income is exempt in their tax structure, find that it is a payable proposition to invest in Australian industry. I think that the time has come when this should be examined by the Treasurer, who is the responsible Minister, and by the Government in the same critical light as the Governor of the Bank of Canada sought to point out in his role as the custodian of the Canadian monetary system. In the report to which I have referred, he pointed out that monetary controls have distinct limits, and I hope that later to-night, in another debate, I shall be able to point out that prudence is not being observed in Australia in that direction. I emphasize again that the Governor of the Bank of Canada pointed out that foreigners are obtaining a greater and greater degree of control of Canadian industry than he feels is healthy for the Canadian economy. I suggest that the same position has arisen in Australia. New Zealand investment is a comparatively trivial part of the whole. But the aggregate is rising and continuing to grow in extent, particularly with investment here by the United States of America and the United Kingdom. This investment is increasingly taking, not the form of what is called investment in pioneering fields, but what is called portfolio investment, which is simply the buying by foreigners of shares in existing well-established Australian concerns. The more that that goes on, the more is Australia subject to the kind of fluctuations which the Treasurer, in a document tabled here this week, "The Australian Economy 1960 ", says he is trying to avoid. I suggest that, if he is trying to avoid it, there are some positions where he is evading his proper responsibility to do what he avowedly says he intends to do. We on this side of the House do not offer any objection to this measure, because, after all, it simply rationalizes for the most part the taxation arrangement between the two countries. It puts the sister dominion of New Zealand on the same footing for taxation purposes as that occupied by the dominion of Canada and by the United States of America under double taxation agreements between the countries concerned. I take the opportunity to sound the warning that honorable members on this side of the House do not regard foreign investment as an unmixed blessing. We say that if there are things which cannot be done in this country or capital equipment which cannot be made here which is needed, there may be some sort of case for foreign investment. But there is no case for direct investment by foreigners in Australian industries which are already established. Neither is there any case for the speculative flow of money into this country which, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, this Government does nothing to stop. It merely looks, at the end of the year, to the overall balance in London and says, " It has not fallen ", and does not worry that as a consequence the control of large strategic outposts of the Australian economy may be stealthily taken by outside interests. Members of the Opposition therefore seize the opportunity, whenever it presents itself, to indicate our discontent at such a state of affairs. Thus, whilst we give this particular measure our blessing, we again sound a warning in respect of the proper field of foreign investment generally in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2000 {:#debate-31} ### MARRIAGE BILL 1960 Bill presented by **Sir Garfield** Barwick, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Acting Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. **Mr. Speaker,** I think I should say at the outset that for some time past the Government has been conscious of the fact that this bill could not be prepared in time to allow its discussion in this sitting. The Government proposes, therefore, to allow the second-reading debate to await the Budget session later in the year. The interval will be employed in making with the States the several administrative arrangements which the bill contemplates. The interval will also enable the Attorneys-General of the States and other interested organizations and persons to make such representations as they see fit with respect to its provisions. Further, **Mr. Speaker,** whilst the Government takes, of course, the full responsibility for having made these proposals, which it will support as a government, the measure will not be treated as a party measure and as in the case of the Matrimonial Causes Bill last year, members will be free to adopt their own attitudes and to express them by their vote, freely. Last May - on the 14th to be precise - I moved in this House the second reading of the Matrimonial Causes Bill which is now the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959. I was conscious at that time that I was making proposals which were very fundamental to the life of this people. I foreshadowed that I would attempt a bill to place the law with respect to marriage on an Australia-wide basis, so that we might have an Australian marriage evidenced by documents which were common to all marriages throughout the whole of the country. To a degree, such a law is a necessary complement to the Matrimonial Causes Act. Indeed, honorable members will remember that I then mentioned that some portions of that bill might appropriately find a place in a law of marriage. In this connexion I refer in particular to Part IV. of the Matrimonial Causes Act. **Mr. Speaker,** I do not believe that there is any necessary virtue in uniformity. Indeed, in many areas of human endeavour variety may bring strength. But the relationship of husband and wife, parent and child, is common to all of us, whether we derive from one State or from another. Also I think it is particularly proper that, as this country increases in international stature, it should have one uniform law of marriage applicable throughout the Commonwealth and at least some of its territories. As I mentioned in the second-reading speech to which I have made reference, the founding fathers of the Commonwealth were of a like mind; they thought that these fundamental relationships should be governed by a national law; for in a list of subjects, not notable for its length, which were to be conceded to the National Parliament, marriage was included. Consequently, **Mr. Speaker,** the bill whose second reading I move is designed to operate as a law of marriage over the whole of the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island. The Commonwealth here includes the mainland Territories of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. It will be readily appreciated why the bill does not attempt a law to operate in its entirety in the Territories of Papua and New Guinea and the other external territories of the Commonwealth. A law which is suitable for the mainland and the Territory of Norfolk Island, would probably prove inapt in the other external territories. However, may I mention, in passing, that, although the act will not operate in its entirety in those external territories, the marriages which it enables and the legitimation of children which it effects will have validity not only in the Commonwealth and the Territory of Norfolk Island but also throughout all the other external territories. Clause 105 of the bill works this result. **Mr. Speaker,** an endeavour has been made to make this bill as comprehensive as possible. Consequently, the provisions of the Marriage (Overseas) Act 1955-1958 have been incorporated in it with some procedural alterations to make the operation of the substantial provisions consonant with the other portions of the bill. The Marriage (Overseas) Act provides for the marriage abroad of an Australian national, whether with another Australian national or with a national of another country before an Australian diplomatic or consular officer or a chaplain. Opportunity has also been taken in this bill to enable diplomatic and consular representatives of foreign countries to this country, to marry nationals of countries other than Australia according to the rights and observances of a foreign country but, subject to certain qualifications to which I shall later refer and to the existence of reciprocal arrangements with the country whose diplomatic or consular representative celebrates the marriage. **Mr. Speaker,** one other field has been explored by the bill. It is that of the legitimation of children born out of wedlock. When I mention the details of that part of the bill, honorable members will realize that the Government has approached this question with great width of mind and deep human understanding. I feel sure that when honorable members have studied the provisions they will espouse them without cavil and with much satisfaction. At the present time, the marriage laws of the several States and of the Territories to which this bill applies are diverse. The recognition in one State of the marriage status acquired in another rests entirely upon the rules of private international law worked out over many generations to regulate such questions as between independent and, in relation to each other, foreign States. The bill would replace this diverse body of statutory law and render unnecessary any resort to the rules of private international law to determine, in the Commonwealth or in any Territory, the efficacy and validity of a marriage solemnized or a legitimation effected within the Commonwealth and the Territories to which the bill applies, or indeed outside the Commonwealth if the marriage is celebrated under Part IV. Laws of marriage, in the very nature of things, deal largely with matters of procedure and with the capacity of parties to enter the married state. This has been the characteristic of such legislation ever since the passage in 1753 by the English Parliament of 26 Geo. II C. 33, commonly referred to as Lord Hardwicke's Act, a measure which might fairly be described as the first marriage act in the current sense. Though largely procedural, a basic endeavour of a law of marriage, as I conceive it, is to ensure that the parties have sufficient maturity to comprehend and perform its responsible obligations. The public nature of the ceremony, the precision with which the fact of marriage is evidenced, and the ensurance that marriages are not rendered invalid by failure to observe procedural steps, or by errors or omissions in relevant documents, are all important aspects of a law of marriage. A feature of such laws throughout Australia, and indeed also in Great Britain, is that provision is made both for marriages with religious ceremony and observances, and for marriages before officials, without any such ceremonies or observances. This bill pays attention to all these matters and maintains these alternative forms of marriage ceremony. It is very significant to remark that, notwithstanding provisions of the latter kind in the existing laws, the proportion of marriages in Australia which take place with religious ceremony and observances is very high. The precise figures, if I may pause to mention them, are that out of 74,363 marriages recorded in Australia last year, 65,885 or 88.6 per cent., were celebrated according to a religious faith, and but 8,478, or 11.4 per cent., were celebrated before an official without religious ceremony or observances. Before turning to a brief description of the salient points of the bill, may I briefly describe some of the significant features of the existing State laws? First of all, the States separately register ministers of religion as authorized celebrants of marriage. All States do not recognize all the religious denominations in the Australian community, and the registration of a celebrant in one State has no validity in another State. Each State maintains its own system of registration of marriage, these systems differing one from another in respect of many of the technical details. The States vary in the prescription .of the marriageable age, that age which is set as the minimum age at which the young should be able to marry. Herein there is much diversity, for in the eastern, and most populous, part of Australia, the traditions of the common law, which in turn followed those of the Roman law, are maintained. A marriage of a lad of fourteen to a girl of twelve is acceptable in these States and a marriage below those ages down to the age of seven years is but voidable, so that cohabitation after fourteen or twelve years of age, as the case may be, makes a good marriage. It is only a marriage under the age of seven years which is struck with invalidity. New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have been content with these provisions. The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied me with the figures for 1959. In that year, in the three eastern States combined, 2 girls aged thirteen, 36 girls aged fourteen, and 245 girls aged fifteen were married, whilst 36 boys aged sixteen and 184 boys aged seventeen were married. In the other three States fairly recent amendments of the law have altered this position so as to set the minimum age at eighteen years for the male and sixteen years for the female with, in some States, a relaxing power vested in a magistrate where special circumstances exist. The precise dates of these amendments are: Tasmania. 1942; Western Australia, 1956; South Australia, 1957. **Mr. Speaker,** the question of what is the proper marriageable age to set for the Aus-tralian people has given the Government great concern. It is of course, not being asked, nor is this House being asked, to express a view on what is the desirable age; we are but directing ourselves to setting the minimum age. I frankly confess that probably most of us would think the minimum desirable age much higher than that which this bill sets. There is no doubt, abroad in the world, a noticeable tendency to raise the marriageable age. By way of demonstration of that statement, I refer to a publication of the United Nations entided " Consent to Marriage and Age of Marriage ", from which I have compiled a table which, with the concurrence of honorable members, I shall incorporate in "Hansard" thereby obviating the tedium of reading it line for line. The table is as follows: - I can sum up the table by saying that the preponderant experience of the twenty countries mentioned therein seems to set the marriageable age at eighteen years for the male and sixteen years for the female or, indeed, perhaps a trifle higher. The Government proposes in this bill that this Parliament should set for the people of Australia a minimum marriageable age of eighteen years for males and sixteen years for females. The consequence of this, **Mr. Speaker,** is that by dint of the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act a marriage under these ages is void. The bill adopts the view that a marriage of immature people solely to ensure that an expectant child is born within wedlock is not in the real interests of the child or of the parents or, for that matter, of the community. Consequently, it has been felt that to render a marriage under the marriageable age invalid would remove what might be an instrument of pressure to enter what is commonly called a forced marriage, which, on what I have been able to glean, the social workers would say is unlikely to be permanent and more likely to cause misery and to wreck more lives than one. I would like to mention, **Mr. Speaker** - perhaps a little out of order to this recital - several circumstances which are relevant to what I have just said. First, the bill provides machinery whereby a marriage may be permitted where one of the parties is under the marriageable age. For this purpose a Judge of a Supreme Court of a State or of a Territory, if satisfied that the circumstances of the case are so exceptional and unusual as to justify it, may make an order in brief allowing the marriage. The words, " so exceptional and unusual " have been chosen, **Mr. Speaker,** to mark the intention that it will be a rare case in which this power can properly be exercised and that the mere expectancy of a child will be insufficient to warrant an order allowing the marriage of a party under the marriageable age. It may be, of course, that pregnancy of one of the parties coupled with other circumstances of a compelling kind would move a judge to make the order. I do not pause here to illustrate what might well be such circumstances, but in committee I will do so purely by way of illustration of the operation of the particular provisions. **Mr. Speaker,** I have prepared a short statement which recounts the substantial provisions of the laws of the three States, which of recent years have raised the marriageable age, and which, with the concurrence of honorable members, I will incorporate in " Hansard ". The statement reads - >In Tasmania, since 1942, no marriage may be celebrated if either of the intending parties thereto is under the age of eighteen years in the case of a male, or sixteen years in the case of a female, unless the Registrar-General or a Police Magistrate, after inquiry, is satisfied that for some special reason it should be celebrated. A marriage in contravention of this provision may nevertheless be valid. > >In Western Australia, in 1956, the age of marriage was similarly raised to eighteen for males and sixteen for females. A Magistrate may make an order permitting a marriage below that age if, after inquiry, he is satisfied: - > >that the intended wife is pregnant; > >that the proper consents to the marriage have been given; and > >that the order should be made in the interests of the parties to the intended marriage, and of the unborn child. A marriage in breach of this provision is not to be void by reason only of the breach, though it is a ground of dissolution under section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes and Personal Status Code 1948. > >In South Australia, in 1957, the age of marriage was also raised to eighteen for males and sixteen for females. A marriage under that age is void. In the case of a boy over fourteen years and a girl over twelve years, the Minister administering the act may make an order permitting the marriage " if he is satisfied that it is desirable that they should marry ". > >In the United Kingdom, since the Age of Marriage Act, 1929, a marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen years is void. In New Zealand, the Marriage Act 1955 prohibits the marriage of a person under the age of sixteen years, but a marriage in contravention of the section is not void on that account only. The other matter I wish to mention in this connexion is that this bill attacks the problem of the legitimation of children in what I can fairly say is a comprehensive manner. At this point, I will merely mention two aspects of the provisions as to legitimation which are to be found in Part V. of the bill. In the first place, this bill legitimates a child born out of wedlock upon and by the marriage of the parents whether or not there was any impediment at the date of the birth of the child to their marriage. This situation does not now obtain throughout Australia. If this bill becomes law, a child born out of wedlock to immature parents - and by that I mean parents who are both or of whom one is under the marriageable age - may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of those parents which they may do after they attain marriageable age. But there is a further aspect of the provisions as to legitimation which bears on this matter. This bill provides that the children of a void marriage will be legitimate if one of the parents believed, on reasonable grounds, at the time of conception or of the marriage ceremony, whichever is the later, that the marriage ceremony through which the parties went was effective and that a marriage eventuated. Whilst this provision Covers other cases, it could, of course, cover a case of a marriage under the marriageable age where one of the parties, with honesty and on reasonable grounds, believed that he or she, as the case may be, was, by reason of the ceremony, married. The result of all this is that people may not validly marry under the ages of eighteen for a male and sixteen for a female, but if they subsequently marry any child born out of wedlock will be legitimated. Moreover, if two parties go through a ceremony of marriage when one of them is under marriageable age, their offspring will be legitimate if one of them believed the marriage to be good, that is to say, believed at the conception of the child or the date of the marriage ceremony, whichever is the later, that both were over marriageable age. There is also the general proviso that in very exceptional and unusual circumstances a marriage may be permitted on the order of a judge if one of the parties is under marriageable age. May I now turn briefly to the provisions of the bill which deal with the celebration of marriage? Provision is made to recognize religious bodies and organizations for the purposes of the act. Because of the considerable variation in the nomenclature and organization of the churches, allembracing expressions have had to be used to describe them. The expressions " religious bodies " and " religious organizations " have been chosen. At the moment, the bill provides for those by proclamation, but I would hope that by the time the committee stages are reached, I will be able, after consultation with all the religious bodies and denominations, to provide a schedule of them to be placed in the bill with provision for that schedule to be augmented by proclamation. Ministers of religion nominated by a denomination, scheduled or proclaimed as the case may be, will be registered as celebrants. The existing State lists of registered celebrants will become the foundation of the Commonwealth register of ministers of religion and additions to the list will be made in the State of residence of the minister by the State officials acting for the Commonwealth in this respect. My department will publish an annual list that will comprise all the State lists and the additions thereto and will, from time to time, after receipt of notice of the additions in each State area, notify those additions to the other States. Each State register of ministers of religion will thus be kept up to date as to the persons who, throughout Australia, are authorized to celebrate marriages. A registered celebrant will be able to celebrate a marriage in any part of Australia, but will be required, if he changes his address, to notify such change so that his name may be removed from one State list and placed on the list of another State, but a failure to do so will not invalidate his registration. By this means many, if not all, of the inconveniences which are possible now with the separate State registers will be obviated. The bill provides for notice of marriage to be given, the notice to contain a substantial amount of relevant information. The periods of notice which are presently required in the several States are set out in a short statement which, with the concurrence of honorable members, I shall incorporate in " Hansard ". The statement is as follows: - >POSITION AS TO NOTICE OF MARRIAGE UNDER EXISTING STATE LAWS. > >The periods of notice of intended marriage prescribed by the various State Acts are: New South Wales and Queensland, none; Victoria, three days; Tasmania, seven days; South Australia, ten days. In Western Australia, where a marriage is to be celebrated in a church under banns, banns must be published three Sundays, or, if under notice, a notice must be affixed to the church for fourteen days; seven days' notice must be given if the marriage is to be performed by a district registrar. After a good deal of consideration, the Government proposes that there should be a period of notice and that it should be a period of seven days. It will be possible for a marriage registrar, as distinct from a minister of religion, to abbreviate this time both for a marriage before himself or for a marriage to take place before a minister of religion. But the bill makes it perfectly clear by clause 44 that nothing in it requires a minister of religion to solemnize a marriage or prevents him from insisting on a longer period of notice or on the observance of any additional requirements. Thus the churches will be free to fix their own periods of notice, being seven days or more, and to maintain their own observances. The Government has felt that this solution will be found satisfactory. There must be a notice in any event; in normal circumstances it must be a seven days notice. I mentioned earlier that the bill maintains provision for alternative ceremonies of marriage, lt provides that a marriage performed by a minister of religion according to the form and ceremony followed by the religious body or organization to which the minister belongs is sufficient. The bill also provides for a form of marriage before a marriage registrar who is an official. In connexion with the solemnization of a marriage wherever it takes place, the bill places on the parties and the celebrant the need to have in hand a birth certificate, or in default of it a statutory declaration explaining its absence and verifying the particulars which would be expected to be found in the birth certificate. The celebrant is placed under an obligation to satisfy himself as to the identity of the parties and to refrain from solemnizing the marriage if he has reason to believe that the relevant documents contain false statements or contain an error or are defective. **Mr. Speaker,** these provisions ought to render it extremely difficult for persons to be married under the marriageable age or under a mistake as to identity or in the false belief as to the age or condition of the other. Where a minor desires to marry, the consent of the appropriate person - parent, guardian, or person who has the custody of the minor - duly authenticated, must be forthcoming. The first schedule to the bill sets out the persons whose consent should be given according to the particular circumstances of the minor. However, sometimes the consent of the appropriate person cannot be obtained or cannot be obtained without undue delay. In such cases, the bill provides machinery whereby a prescribed authority can dispense with the need for such consent. If that authority refuses to dispense with the consent, the minor may apply to a magistrate who can give the consent in lieu of the appropriate person. Also occasions arise where the consent of the appropriate person is unreasonably refused. In that event the minor may apply to a magistrate to give such consent and appeal to a Supreme Court judge against a magistrate's order. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Can the minor do that in his own name? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- Yes. I need not trouble the House with the detailed provisions as to the presence of witnesses, the contents of the certificate of marriage or the duty of the celebrant to forward a duplicate original of the certificate to the appropriate registrar of marriages. But I should inform the House that the bill does not provide for the registration by the Commonwealth of the marriages which may be effected under its provisions. This function has been left to the States and the necessary arrangements will be sought with them to this end, preliminary conversations on this matter having already been had with the AttorneysGeneral of the States. The bill clearly sets out that failure to comply with certain of the requirements of the bill will not invalidate a marriage. Compliance with these provisions is secured by the offence provisions. Certainty of the status of marriage requires that such a course be taken. I need not refer to the provisions of that part in the bill which deals with marriages overseas of Australian nationals before Australian diplomatic or consular officers or before chaplains. The law in this respect is not significantly altered by the bill, and remains as it is now under the Marriage Overseas Act 1955-1958, which this bill will repeal and replace. However, I should inform honorable members of a new feature which this bill introduces. The bill generally prohibits any person who is not an authorized celebrant from solemnizing marriages. But Division 3 of Part III. relaxes this prohibition in the case of a diplomatic or consular officer of a foreign power accredited to this country where the law or custom of his country allows that officer to solemnize marriages outside the confines of its own territory and where there are reciprocal arrangements which allow, in the country which accredits him, the celebration of marriages of Australian nationals by Australian diplomatic or consular officers. But the diplomatic or consular officer cannot perform a marriage in Australia unless neither of the parties is an Australian citizen or an Australian protected person, or is under marriageable age, or has a relationship to the other within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, or is already married. If these requirements are satisfied, then marriage of persons who are not Australian citizens may be celebrated by the diplomatic or consular officer and may be registered in the registry for which the bill provides, and will be recognized as valid throughout Australia and all its territories. **Mr. Speaker,** it will be observed that there is no attempt to define marriage in this bill. None of the marriage laws to which I have referred contains any such definition. But insistence on its monogamous quality is indicated by, on the one hand, the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which render a marriage void where one of the parties is already married, and by a provision in this bill making bigamy an offence. I should like to mention in passing that a federal offence of bigamy was felt to be necessary in order to facilitate prosecution for such an offence and to obviate difficulties which might now arise if reliance in this respect was placed upon the State laws. There will be found in the bill a number of offences which are designed to secure observance of the actual requirements of the bill and thus ensure as far as possible the utmost regularity in the solemnization of marriage. The bill contains a number of transitional provisions designed to provide for the period of change-over from the existing laws to those of this bill upon its commencement, if it should become an act. With the detail of these technical provisions there is no need for me to deal at this stage. I come lastly, so far as the description of the bill is concerned, to a subject upon which I have already touched in another connexion - that is to say, that part of the measure which deals with the legitimation of children. It will have been gathered by honorable members, I think, that in some parts of Australia the subsequent marriage of parents of a child born out of wedlock will be ineffective to legitimate the child if on the date of its birth the parents could not have validly contracted a marriage. This bill, in clause 84, in wide and emphatic language, provides that if, at the time of the marriage of the parents, the father was domiciled in Australia or the marriage of the parents took place in Australia, or outside Australia under the existing provisions as to marriages overseas or under those of this bill, a child will by virtue of the marriage for all purposes be the legitimate child of the parents as from birth or the commencement of this act whichever is the later. It is made quite clear by sub-clause (2.) of clause 84 that the fact that there was a legal impediment to the marriage of the parents at the time of the birth will not prevent the legitimation. The effect .of marriage in this respect will operate whether the marriage took place before or after the commencement of the act, whether the .child was born before or after the commencement of the act or, indeed, whether or not the child was alive at the date of the marriage or at the commencement of the act. That provides for descendants in some circumstances. By sub-clause (4.) of clause 84, the bill provides that it does not render ineffective any legitimation which has already taken place under the law of a State or Territory and such laws will continue to operate in relation to such a legitimation. This clause, coupled with the width of the substantive provisions as to legitimation, will work on the one hand to preserve the status of a child in a State under the laws of .which he is already legitimate. But if that legitimation is not recognized in other States, this Federal bill will legitimate him in relation to the other States and the Territories of the Commonwealth. It is important, however, that accrued rights of property should not be disturbed by this provision, which to an extent has a retrospective operation. Thus, it is provided by subclause (1 .) of clause 88 that nothing in Part V. " shall be taken to operate so as to affect any estate, right or interest in real or personal property to which a person has become, or may become, entitled, either mediately or immediately, in possession or expectancy, by virtue of a disposition that took effect before the commencement of this Act or bv devolution by law on the death of a Demon before the commencement of this Act ". I have already mentioned the provisions as to legitimating children of a void marriage and do not repeat them, but I call attention to the provisions of clause 85. The provisions of this clause complement those of the preceding clause and legitimate children of parents who marry after the birth of the child in a place outside Australia if, by the law of the place where the father was domiciled at the time of the marriage, the child became legitimated by virtue of that marriage. This recital, necessarily brief and sketchy, is nonetheless sufficient to indicate to honorable members that the bill attempts to cover a very wide field and to legitimate a child born out of wedlock to what one might think is the utmost admissible extent. I think that the status of legitimacy must be retained. But I think, also, that it is desirable that the area of the distinction between the legitimate and the illegitimate child should be reduced as far as possible. After all, the child is innocent of any complicity in bringing about the situation which, as things now are, results in illegitimacy. The Government feels confident that these provisions mark a very distinct social advance in Australia, and that, in the succeeding years, the operation of the act which I hope will result from this bill will give comfort and satisfaction to many people. **Mr. Speaker,** the bill is a lengthy one. lt has 111 clauses. Its preparation has involved a great deal of detailed examination of the technical aspects of the subject. The decisions as to the policy which the Government proposes in it have involved the consideration of many and varied human situations. I ought to say that the Government is much indebted to the officers of the Attorney-General's Department who have devoted a great deal of time, much of it out of ordinary hours of duty, and much anxious consideration, to the many difficult technical and human problems which have arisen in the preparation of this bill. The Government feels that the bill not merely places the regulation of marriage on a uniform footing throughout Australia, but also is a contribution towards the stability of marriage which, as I said in an earlier speech, will make for the well-being of this country throughout its great future. The bill goes a long way in this direction and endeavours to ensure that our people - particularly our young people - enter into marriage, in the familiar and eloquent words, not lightly but advisedly. **Mr. Speaker,** I commend this bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Whitlam)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2007 {:#debate-32} ### BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1960 In committee: Consideration resumed. Clauses 21 to 26 - by leave - taken together. {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- I am seeking some advice from the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** concerning proposed changes in the existing staff regulations as they apply to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said - >It is not intended to provide in the new staff rules for the Appointments Advisory Committee established under division 5 of the existing staff regulations. The committee at present comprises two senior executive officers and a representative of a staff organization. One of its principal functions is to review proposed nominations for vacancies, the majority of which are, of course, later subject to appeal to the independent Promotions Appeal Board. It also reviews changes affecting the staffs salary and employment conditions . . . The Minister went on to say that administrative arrangements had caused this amendment. I want the Minister to inform the House exactly what are the functions of the Appointments Advisory Committee. Is it in fact a promotions committee, which investigates applications received for promotion to positions within the service of the commission? If so, why is it that some delays were experienced by the Appointments Advisory Committee? Is it, as the name suggests, merely an advisory committee which goes through the list of persons likely to fit a position and recommends accordingly, or have positions been advertised and then filled by another body? I want to be certain that, under this amendment to the existing staff regulations, the rights of employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are safeguarded. I want to be sure that the commission will not be able to take some one out of hand from a position and promote him over the heads of various members of the commission staff. I noticed that, under the principal act, seniority is supposed to be taken into account when persons are promoted, providing their qualifications are equal. I want to be certain that this rule will continue to apply, and that in future, when vacancies occur, information concerning them will be circulated throughout the staff. I should like to see the actual appointments made by a promotions committee. Then, if a junior man is appointed to a position, the men who have been passed over should still have the right of at least one appeal. It is proposed to amend section 69 of the principal act, which is the section that relates to banking accounts of the commission. The principal act states - >The Commission shall open and maintain with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and may open and maintain with any other prescribed bank, an account or accounts, into which there shall be paid all moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Commission and all other moneys received by the Commission. I want the Postmaster-General to reconsider the attitude he adopted towards a previous amendment very similar in character to that proposed in the bill in clause 24. Will the Minister consider making it mandatory for the A.B.C. to bank its money and operate its bank accounts only through the Commonwealth Bank? {: #debate-32-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- I think I can give the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart)** an assurance that will satisfy him on the matter of staff regulations. In actual fact, the Appointments Advisory Committee, which is to be discontinued, has become somewhat redundant, and in an organization like the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has developed from a staff of SOO to about 2,500, it is important that appointments should be made with reasonable celerity. I do not think the staff associations concerned will object very much to this proposal. It is proposed to discontinue this advisory committee, but the provisions for the calling of nominations for appointments through the " Commonwealth Gazette " will still apply. The opportunity for appealing to the Appeals Board will remain, and consequently there will be less delay in the determination of appointments within the commission's staff than there has been previously. At present, no appointment can be made in less than twelve weeks from the time the vacancy occurs, and then there are consequential vacancies arising from the selec tion of officers for higher positions. These are frequently not filled on a permanent basis for at least twelve months. The commission is trying to avoid those delays. Consequently, it is adopting the practices that are common throughout the Public Service. That is why we have decided, because of the great increase in the number of employees in the commission, that it is important to bring conditions more into line with those obtaining at present in the Public Service. That does not mean that the right of determination and recommendation which is now held by the commission will be in any way abrogated, but it does mean that the commission is setting out to obtain for itself in such matters as this all the advantages of the vast experience of the Public Service Board in dealing with appointments, appeals and salaries. That, in general, is what we are trying to establish by this bill. It does not mean that the commission will cease to confer with the staff organizations. On the contrary, we believe that these proposals will improve very considerably the relationship which exists between the officers and staff of the commission. No change will be made in the establishment of the promotions appeal board. That is the important point. The appeal board will continue to operate, and any person who feels aggrieved by the appointment of a junior officer will have the right to appeal to the board which has the authority to endorse or to disallow any provisional appointment or promotion by the commission. The board's authority will be increased to cope with the proposed situation. I think that I have now more or less answered the questions which were raised by the honorable member. I assure him that there is no desire to affect adversely the rights of employees of the commission. All that this proposal seeks to do is streamline the organization to cope with the vast increase in the staff of the commission and to ensure that various matters of administration can be tidied up more quickly than has been the case in the past. {: #debate-32-s2 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- I understand from employees of the commission that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists and that the position has never been worse than it is to-day. There is discontent amongst even the higher grade officers who are outside the range of the staff associations. I understand that there are two causes for discontent, first, the appeals board, and secondly, the contract system. I suggest that the contract system does not work well. People are brought in from other countries on contract. They fill a position or positions for a number of years and then leave the employment of the commission. The positions that they occupied are advertised and they are appointed permanently to the positions over Australians who would have been able to fill them had they been given the opportunity to do so. In other words, the charge is that there is a lot of favouritism in the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, consequently, there is a great deal of discontent. If what I am told is true, such a big organization should not have discontent of this kind. The Minister has a duty to remove all causes of discontent. As a first step, I suggest that he review the contract system to see that there is no discrimination against Australians. Even Australian returned soldiers are being denied promotion by the Australian Broadcasting Commission because people are brought from the B.B.C. under contract and are employed for anything up to a year or more. The positions which they occupied on contract are advertised as being open to people both inside and outside the service as permanent positions. Invariably, the people who have come to Australia under contract get the appointments, and the appeals tribunal never upsets the appointments by the commission. There is a good deal of evidence to support my statement. I do not know the inside workings of the commission so I cannot verify all the statements that I make, but I think that there is a prima facie case for a thorough investigation of the contract system. The appeals board system also is not satisfactory. There does not seem to be any reason why the Public Service Appeals Board should not be used for hearing appeals of this kind. The members of the board are trained in their particular work; they have had long experience and, although every decision that they make does not satisfy every appellant, by and large the Public Service organizations are not dissatisfied with the work that has been done by the appeals board over the years. The commission has had quite a number of chairmen of the appeals board. They have all been very good people in their own right but, in recent years, they have not been men of experience in public service affairs. The late **Mr. Roy** Hendy, who was a very fine citizen and the town clerk of the Sydney City Council, acted as chairman of the appeals board. On one occasion, I think, the commission employed a retired district court judge from New South Wales. There should be uniformity in these things. I can see no reason why the Public Service Appeals Board should not be given the responsibility of handling appeals against decisions of the commission. As I have said, I believe there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the staff of the commission, and the position should be rectified. At other stages of the debate 1 shall raise other questions relating to disciplinary action and appeals flowing from it. {: #debate-32-s3 .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt .- I want to refer, first of all, to clause 22 of the bill which seeks to repeal section 56 of the principal act whereby the commission was given the power to dismiss an officer, or to reduce his status or rate of pay for incapacity or misconduct. I do not think that there can be any objection to that provision. Clause 22 gives those powers to the commission with the additional power to fine an officer. I should have thought that it was elementary to the Australian and the British ways of life that a person cannot be imprisoned or fined except by due process of law. I am very perturbed at this modern tendency to deprive people of their liberty or to impose fines upon them without trying them in a court of law. Under this new provision the boss - the commission - without any trial, in complete secrecy, and possibly without any notice to the person concerned, is empowered to impose a fine upon an officer. It is true that if the fine exceeds £2 the officer has a right of appeal, not to a court of the land but to what is described as a disciplinary board. Now we are finding a tendency in this country to get away from the traditions of democracy and the retention of the judiciary and courts of law to the establishment of bureaucracy, boards and commissions, purporting to exercise judicial functions. I ask the Minister to have another look at this clause before this bill reaches another place, or perhaps even in this chamber. I cannot see any reason why the commission, which as 1 say, is the boss of the employee, should be able, in secrecy and without being accountable to anybody, to impose a fine upon one of its officers. {: #debate-32-s4 .speaker-JRJ} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden: -- Only with the consent of the officer. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am interested to hear your remark, **Mr. Chairman;** but clause 22, which amends section 56 of the principal act says - >Section fifty-six of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - An officer who- Then paragraph (2) says - >Where a person is guilty of misconduct, the Commission may fine the officer a sum not exceeding twenty pounds. There is no word there about the consent of the officer. Apparently, **Sir, the** head of the department or the commission simply has to say that the officer has committed an offence and he can then be told that he has been fined £20, or £2, as the case may be. He may have had no opportunity to be heard or to put his case and may not even have received details of the offence with which he is charged. I suppose I will be told by the Minister that the commission will of course follow the normal practices of the courts of law. But if it is going to follow the normal practice of the courts of law, why should not the courts of law deal with a man if he has committed an offence? So, I ask the Minister to abandon this clause and not get away from those great bulwarks of democracy which have enabled us to be one of the freest countries in the world. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why not abolish it altogether? {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- Abolish the fine of £20? {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- That is a point of view. I would have thought that even the honorable member would agree that when offences are committed some authority should have power to impose an appropriate penalty and there should be no disagreement in the committee in that regard. 1 contend that it should not be a bureaucrat or a civil servant, or the man's boss, who imposes a fine, but the courts of law which have for hundreds of years in Great Britain and for a very long time in this country upheld and maintained the freedom and liberty of the people of Australia. I wish now to pass to clause 23, which deals with appeals from decisions of the committee after offences are alleged to have been committed. There we find that the appeal is to the disciplinary board. Why should not an appeal to the court be allowed? Why do we have to have this disciplinary board - a new body presumably and one which may sit in secrecy? In secrecy there is no justice. The appeal should be to the ordinary courts of the land. I will deal next with clause 25. I notice here that the only persons who are entitled to receive television licences are companies. I cannot see why a private individual, or a partnership, should not be eligible to conduct a television station if the board is satisfied that a person or firm is competent to undertake that obligation. I therefore ask the Minister either to amend the clause at this stage or to give consideration to it before it reaches another place. {: #debate-32-s5 .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN:
Kingston .- I rise to protest on behalf of the Opposition against clause 24 which amends the principal act by removing the words " Commonwealth Bank" and inserting in their stead the words " Reserve Bank ". The Opposition is still strongly of the opinion that the moneys of the board, or commission, should be banked with the Commonwealth Bank. We tested the feeling of the committee on this matter earlier to-day. For that purpose the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** moved an amendment to another clause, and the Government, with its numbers, made it clear to the Parliament and to Australia that it did intend, if it thought it wise, to bank with the private trading banks. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- And you made bank nationalization clear. {: .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN: -- We make it clear that we believe that moneys voted by this Parliament should be banked in the people's bank - the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. There can be no objection that there are not sufficient branches of that bank throughout Australia. The Commonwealth Bank has branches throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Every post office provides facilities on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank; and the bank itself has branches throughout Australia. Therefore, the commission would have no difficulty whatsoever in banking with the Commonwealth Bank. As the Commonwealth Bank uses a greater proportion of its fund's than does any private bank to provide homes for the people of Australia, its deposits go to the people to enable them to build homes. Whereas the private trading banks use their funds for hire purchase and black market banking and charge extremely high interest rates in that field, the Commonwealth Bank is prevented from entering that field and offering real competition to the private institutions. However, this Government earlier to-day decided by vote that through the commission it would bank its funds with the private trading banks. And, of course, one can't really object, I suppose, because the private trading banks are, after all, the people whom the Government represents in this Parliament. They are the people who, at election time, supply the Government parties' campaign funds and allow their officers to canvass on behalf of the candidates of those parties at election time. So we cannot really object. But we do raise our voices again on this clause to point out that the Australian Labour Party strongly believes that the funds of the commission should be deposited only with the people's bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. But this Government used its numbers earlier to-day and made it clear that while it says at this stage that it banks with the Commonwealth Bank, in a snide way it refuses to give an assurance that it will continue to do so. I repeat that we believe that the funds should be deposited with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. {: #debate-32-s6 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- I do not want to rise too often during this debate, but if a number of points are to be brought up, I think it might be desirable that I deal with them more or less as they come up, because, by so doing, we might avoid repetition of discussion. It has been suggested that there is some dissatisfaction within the Australian Broadcasting Commission with the provisions proposed in clause 22, which seeks to repeal section 56 of the principal act and to insert a new section in its stead. I think most honorable members will agree that clause 22 is an improvement on the present provision. We are dealing now with misconduct and how that misconduct may be dealt with by the commission. After all, any organization must be in a position to deal with acts of misconduct by its employees. That principle is not new. Even the unions make provision for that. Clause 22 sets out to define exactly what constitutes misconduct. It contains a list of acts which can be considered as constituting misconduct. I do not propose to read them, but the clause says that an officer who does so and so - is, for the purposes of this section, guilty of misconduct. That is fair enough. Who is going to deny that it is better to specify in an act what constitutes misconduct than to leave it to the determination of the heads of the particular departments concerned? At this point I wish to reply to the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** I have said that We want to improve conditions. The Leader of the Opposition has stated that it is desirable to improve conditions in the commission. The Leader of the Opposition said something about favouritism, and I do not agree with his remarks there. I point out that, having specified what constitutes misconduct, the clause goes on to provide - >Where a person is guilty of misconduct, the Commission may - > >caution or reprimand the officer; > >fine the officer a sum not exceeding twenty pounds; > >if the officer occupies a position to which a range of salary is applicable and he is in receipt of a salary other than the minimum salary of that range - reduce his salary to a lower salary within that range; > >reduce the officer to a lower position and salary; or > >dismiss the officer from the service of the Commission. How does that proposal compare with the present position? The act now provides that the commission may dismiss an officer, or reduce his status or rate of pay for incapacity or misconduct. How can honorable members opposite possibly complain about our proposal, which seeks to give the employee much greater protection against summary dismissal by a senior officer? I repeat that as the act stands now, the commission may dismiss an officer or reduce his status or rate of pay for incapacity or misconduct. The proposal that we submit sets out what constitutes misconduct and then provides for a much lower penalty in the lower grades of misconduct than is provided in the act now. In those circumstances, I fail to see that there is any justification whatsoever for the objections raised by the honorable members opposite to this clause. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- There was an objection from a member on your own side of the committee. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON: -- I do not think there has been any objection to this from this side of the committee, although I think I have been asked why there should not be a right of appeal to a court. I am afraid I cannot accept. It must be appreciated that we have a board to which appeals can be made against any fine or impost. That appeal board is comprised of an independent chairman, a representative of the commission and a representative of the employees. The setting up of such a board is standard practice throughout the whole range of Government institutions. In a case such as this, to allow a right of appeal to a court would be to do something completely foreign to what we normally do, and that would not be desirable. I repeat that there is an appeal board on which there is an independent chairman, a representative of the commission and a representative of the employees. I think that such a tribunal has been generally accepted as being desirable and satisfactory from all points of view. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Would you consider providing for an appeal to a body similar to the Public Service Appeals Board? {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON: -- Would it not be better to retain the position under which the commission has its own appeal board? I submit that it is better for the employees to havean appeal board within the orga nization itself than to approach a tribunal such as the Public Service Appeals Board, which has a much wider scope. {: #debate-32-s7 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland -- There are two important factors involved here. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** has suggested that there is great discontent with the present situation. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- I rise to order. Would the honorable member speak up so that we may hear? We do not like these private meetings at the table. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON: -- It is unusual for the member for Blaxland to be asked to speak up. We are dealing with a tremendously important principle and we should examine the proposal very closely. The honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** suggested that if the Minister could not see his way clear to go all the way, he could at least go some part of the distance towards meeting the situation about which the honorable member complains. As 1 have said, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that there is dissatisfaction at the present time. I think that in the main that dissatisfaction arises from the present provision in the act. I emphasize thatI am not asking for access to the Public Service Appeal Board with relation to punishment, because such a provision would be inferior to the present one. The promotions appeal authority is something separate and apart, and I propose to deal with that. I am pleased that the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** is sitting at the table to hear what I am about to say. The honorable member for Sturt has said that under clause 22 the offences which constitue misconduct are specified. Here I must say that I think the Postmaster-General might have told the committee that the offences which it is proposed to include in the new section 56 are the offences which have been included in the Public Service Act, and never altered, since away back in the thirties. Surely in the last 30 years we have travelled some distance in connexion with what should be looked upon as misdemeanours within the framework of an organization such as this. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- What else do you want to see included? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON: -- I want you to take something out. I want you to take paragraph (f) out. If the AttorneyGeneral would have a look at that, he would be the first to agree that it is a type of dragnet provision that gives managements the opportunity to " get " a man, irrespective of how good he may be. It is not physically possible for any officer of the commission or of the Public Service to know all the conditions of employment applicable to him. This is a dragnet, cowardly provision to include in any legislation affecting workers. Let me take this to the next step. As the honorable member for Sturt said, the commission decides whether misconduct has been committed and then decides upon the punishment. I suggest that the PostmasterGeneral should add some words to proposed new section 56 (2.). The provision now reads - >Where a person is guilty of misconduct, the Commission may- I suggest that the following words be added: - after inquiry at which the accused is afforded an opportunity of representation . . . That provision exists in many State public services. If the New South Wales Railways Department intends to hold an inquiry before imposing punishment on an officer - and no man surely should be punished without an inquiry - the accused is entitled to have union or association representation at the inquiry. It is little enough to ask that that principle be adopted in this legislation, so that a man may be represented at an inquiry before punishment is imposed. I suppose that I can say that I have told the Attorney-General in private conversation that I regard the present system of appeals in the Public Service as completely rotten. The Public Service Act sets out a list of punishments, and those punishments have been copied into this legislation. However, in this legislation the appellant authority is the final authority determining what should be done after an appeal is heard. At this stage, I do not want to go into the machinery associated with appeals. The procedure broadly in the Public Service is that an officer is subject to provisions similar to those contained in proposed new section 56. Any punishment imposed on the public servant is imposed by the chief officer, not by the Public Service Board. Provision is made for an appeal authority in the Public Service Act, but the organization of the authority is given in the Public Service Regulations. The Public Service Act provides that the chief officer in a department shall be the officer to impose the punishment in accordance with a scale set out in the act. An appeal board then hears the appeal. It is not empowered to make a decision, and the position would not be so bad if, in fact, the chairman of that board reported to the Public Service Board. However, the procedure is set out in Public Service Regulation 148, which provides - >Except where the Appeal Board considers the officer should be dismissed, the Chairman of the Board shall notify the Chief Officer of the finding, and the Chief Officer shall forthwith inform the officer of the decision of the Appeal Board. I ask honorable members to keep in mind that the chief officer imposes the punishment. I have never seen anything as callous as this provision in any examination I have made of procedures for appeals. Here the chief ^ officer imposes the punishment and the appeal board reports to the chief officer after it has heard the appeal. I ask the Attorney-General to see that something in line with, the provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Bill are provided for the Public Service. In this bill, the appeal board makes the final decision on any appeal that is lodged. The list of misdemeanours settled foi legislation in 1930 surely is not good enough for legislation framed in 1960; but here the list of misdemeanours in the 1930 act is copied into this bill. In my opinion, this indicates that proper thought has not been given to this matter. In this legislation, an officer is guilty of misconduct if he " commits any breach of the conditions of employment applicable to him ". The Public Service Act has no less than 97 sections and there are 153 regulations. Employees in the Public Service are expected to know every one of those provisions, or they may be found guilty of misconduct. I ask the Minister to consider this matter with a clear mind and to decide on a list of misdemeanours without merely copying provisions that are 30 years old. {: #debate-32-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-32-s9 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Canning .- This discussion concerning the employment and discipline of officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission causes me some concern. In his second-reading speech, the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** said - >Whilst the main purpose of this bill is to enact the new provisions to which I have just referred, the Government is taking the opportunity to make other desirable amendments to the principal act. In this connexion, I invite the attention of honorable members particularly to clauses 17 to 23, which, with the agreement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, contemplate improvements to the existing provisions relating to the administrative and staffing arrangements of that body. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- Of course they are improvements. I did not say they were not improvements, but surely you do not regard them as good enough! {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I did not try to interject when the honorable member was speaking, and I ask him to look after his blood pressure for a little while. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- It is quite all right, but at least I am fighting for the rights of employees. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- The PostmasterGeneral went on - >They involve the establishment of a system of formal consultation and concurrence between the commission and the Public Service Board . . . He also said - >The objective here is to simplify the procedure for the implementation of desirable changes in conditions and to ensure that the staff of the commission, in the overall, enjoy no less favorable conditions than are applicable to the Commonwealth Public Service. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- Which I just condemned, and you cannot vindicate them. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- You are not as old as I am, but watch your blood pressure. I would not like to see anything happen to you, so be calm. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- Try to vindicate what you are saying. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member for Blaxland has already spoken. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- No provision in this bill requires the Australian Broadcasting Commission to kowtow to the Public Ser vice Board; all that is suggested is that consultation take place between the two bodies. What a schemozzle is being developed in this respect! Proposed new section 56, set out in clause 22 relates to - >An officer who - is, for the purposes of this section, guilty of misconduct. Details of that misconduct are set out in several paragraphs, some of which are as follows: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. wilfully disobeys or disregards a lawful order made or given to him . . . 1. is inefficient or incompetent by reason of causes which are within his own control; 2. uses intoxicating liquors or drugs to excess; 3. commits any breach of the conditions of employment applicable to him; 4. having made and subscribed an oath or affirmation under section forty-three of this Act, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation; or 5. has wilfully supplied to the Commission or to an officer of the Commission incorrect or misleading information in connexion with his appointment to the service of the Commission. Those are serious charges, and I am amazed at the attitude being adopted by members on the Opposition side who say they represent the working man. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Why are you stonewalling your own bill? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I am not stonewalling; I am trying to put a little sense into your head and into the heads of those who sit behind you. The honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** argues that these matters should not be taken before the commission and that it should not have power to impose a fine. If a person is charged with any of these offences, the honorable member contends that he should be taken before a court. If an officer is charged he can go before a board which will consist of an officer nominated by the commission and an officer representing the employees. Earlier to-day the honorable member for Kingston **(Mr. Galvin)** referred to the admirable system of arbitration which operates in Western Australia because there are no lawyers associated with it. Here is the very opportunity for those unfortunates who may be charged with any of these offences to be heard without going before a court. Yet, the honorable member for Blaxland, to my amazement, suggests that any officer so charged should go before a magistrate. Once that happens, that man will have a black mark against his name for life. These are only simple misdemeanours, but the honorable member would like to go back to times as in the old dark days when a man could be sent out to Australia from England as a convict because he stole a loaf of bread. If a man gets drunk one night, or says something he should not say, perhaps in reaction to some domestic trouble, the honorable member wants to push such an officer into the open and have the offence publicized in the press of this country - which the honorable member is always condemning - and blazoned for everybody to criticize and condemn. This proposed amendment to the principal act simply allows such an unfortunate person to have his charge heard and settled within the organization in which he works, among his friends and fellow workers. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- He does not, in the first instance. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- According to my understanding of the amendment, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not being tied to the apron strings of the Public Service Board; it can act in concurrence and in consultation with the latter. But the honorable member wants to go further than that. He has told the committee and the people of Australia, as a representative of the workers, that if an unfortunate employee is charged with one of these misdemeanours, which he might have committed in an unguarded moment, he should be taken before a court and exposed to all the possible degradation and disgrace of a public hearing and report. I am amazed at the honorable member's attitude, even though this is part of his stonewalling tactics. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- What are you doing? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I am trying to do for the Leader of the Opposition what he should be doing himself. I know thatmy friend, the Leader of the Opposition, at; heart is one of the finest men in this1 country. I know too that he is a goodAustralian both in stature and in spirit. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member should address the Chair, {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I am addressing all my remarks to the committee through you, **Mr. Chairman.** I would not like to disregard the Chair. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition is big in heart and in stature and a big Australian, but I am ashamed of the attitude being adopted by him and those who sit behind him. Instead of trying to protect some poor individual who may commit a slight misdemeanour, they would try to expose him in the courts of this country and have his name blazoned in the press - right, left and centre. On the other hand, this amendment provides that the whole matter may be settled in the organization in which he works. It grants him the privilege of having an independent chairman, to preside over the board that will hear the charge against him, and it will include also a member of the organization in which he works, at the employer level, and another representative from the same organization at the employee level. Honorable members opposite have strongly contended that arbitration matters should be dealt with by laymen and not lawyers, but I am amazed to find that they condemn this amendment which the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** with the able assistance of the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick),** is endeavouring to have incorporated in this measure so that employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall receive a fair deal. Motion (by **Mr. Davidson)** put - >That the question be now put - The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 59 NOES: 30 Majority . . . . 29 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Clause 27- >Division 3 of Part IV. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - {: #debate-32-s10 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- This clause is a very involved, long and abstruse clause. It is in language that is difficult to understand, and I do not know exactly where to start, because it is quite apparent that its inclusion in the bill arose from the fact that the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** heeded the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board contained in a report made to the Minister on 25th July in relation to applications for licences in Brisbane and Adelaide. The board's recommendations were set out in its 10th annual report as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. that fresh applications be invited for one licence for a commercial television station in Brisbane and for one licence in Adelaide; 1. that in the selection of a licensee in either city, so far as practicable, the company will be preferred which is able to demonstrate that it is substantially locally owned and is not controlled in any way by any of the companies holding the licences for existing stations in Sydney and Melbourne or significant shareholders in these companies; and 2. that it be understood and, if necessary, be a condition of any licence for a television station in Brisbane and Adelaide, that the licensee shall not enter into any exclusive arrangement with any other commercial television station for the provision of programmes or the sale of station time or advertising. The Board's reasons for these recommendations were explained at length in its report: they may be briefly summarized as follows: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the main issue which arose at the inquiry was whether expansion of the interests of groups already powerful in the fields of mass communications is to be accepted or whether, in the public interest, the local ownership of television stations and the independence of licensees is the objective to be achieved; 1. it was desirable to prevent any trend towards the concentration of the ownership or control of commercial television stations by such groups: this view is generally accepted in other Englishspeaking countries and is supported by section 91 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1956 which prohibits the ownership, or direct or indirect control, by any person, of more than two commercial television stations; 2. if a start were to be made with two licences, it seemed certain that a great deal of the capital would have to be obtained from the existing television interests in Sydney and Melbourne and newspaper companies; 3. each of the companies holding licences for the existing commercial television stations in Sydney and Melbourne, or substantial shareholders in those companies, were seeking substantial interests in the Brisbane and Adelaide stations: although these interests did not amount to a majority of the shares in the companies seeking licences, they would, in some cases, in the view of the Board, give the Sydney and Melbourne licensees de facto control of the stations concerned, or, at least, a dominating influence on their operations; 4. it would not be practicable, either in Brisbane or Adelaide, to secure the establishment of a genuinely independent local company, with capital subscribed by local firms and organizations and the local public, if two stations were to be established at the outset; 5. the question of the number of licences to be granted had to be considered not only in relation to the availability of local capital, but also in relation to the consistent policy of the Government that television should be introduced into Australia on a gradual basis; 6. the grant of two licences in Brisbane and Adelaide, thus providing the same number of stations for those cities as for Sydney and Melbourne, seemed to be inconsistent with that policy; 7. the omission from the Minister's invitation of applications of any definite indication as to the number of licences to be granted led to considerable confusion, and it appeared to the Board that applicants were, in some cases at least, embarrassed and possibly prejudiced in the presentation of their *claims to a licence, and tor* this reason also, it was desirable for fresh applications to be invited for one licence in each area. The board, after spending a great deal of time hearing applications for television licences in Brisbane and Adelaide made the recommendations which I have just read. The board's view was that none of the applicants who had been heard should be granted licences. The board also recommended that only one licence be issued in Brisbane and one in Adelaide. But then the power of the interests that had applied for the licence in Brisbane was brought to bear on the Government, and on the PostmasterGeneral. Those people who, as the board pointed out, already controlled substantial broadcasting and television interests, brought pressure to bear on the Government through their radio and newspaper tie-ups, and by lobbying in this Parliament. The Minister gave way to their pressure. Although the board had recommended that none of the applicants for television licences in Brisbane and Adelaide should be considered and that only one licence should be granted in each city, the Postmaster-General said in this House on 11th September, 1958- >I lay on the table of the House the following paper: - > >Australian Broadcasting Control Board - > >Report and recommendations to the Postmaster-General on applications for commercial television licences for the Brisbane and Adelaide areas. > >The board's recommendation in its report is that one licence should be issued in each of these cities. The Government, however, has decided that two licences should be granted in each case. It has asked the board to make recommendations as to which applicants should receive the licences. The Opposition, at that time, pointed out that the Government was making a rod for its own back; that it was giving further propaganda mediums to those who already controlled our press and radio. But the Government took no notice. Now, eighteen months later, we find that the Minister has to ask us to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act quite substantially in order to prevent those very people whom the board recommended should not receive licences in Brisbane and Adelaide from getting the whole of the thirteen licences in the country areas. As 1 have said, this clause is long and obscure and there seems to be some doubt as to whether the proposed amendment will be good in law. I want the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick),** who is no longer a paid servant of any newspaper or television interest, but a servant of the people of Australia, to state whether this clause will withstand testing in a court of law.If he believes that the amendment will not withstand challenge, it is his bounden duty to tell the committee that, rather than to allow the Commonwealth to waste thousands of pounds on a futile defence of the legislation in the High Court. I would like the Postmaster-General to explain to the committee the provisions of this clause. In his second-reading speech he said that details of various clauses would be explained at the committee stage, but now he has disappeared from the chamber. I do not know whether he has handed over the control of this clause to the AttorneyGeneral. I hope that he has, because I feel certain that the Attorney-General will have to give an opinion which will determine, once and for all, whether this act will withstand test in the courts of law. {: #debate-32-s11 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-32-s12 .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr WHEELER:
Mitchell **.- Mr. Chairman,** this is the first time that I have entered into the committee stage of the discussion on the bill. I have only a few brief comments to make on this clause and the succeeding clause 28. [Quorum formed.] I view with mixed feelings the calling of a quorum by the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** because I thought, at one stage, that he was a friend of mine. 1 want to address myself to clause 27 because 1 believe that this clause will eventually prove a splendid example of the isolation of practice from theory. The ramifications of this clause cover many aspects and upon its practical implementation a book might well be written. Elsewhere in the bill, the Government has strained at a gnat but in this clause it easily performs the feat of swallowing a camel. One hesitates to offer an opinion based on commercial experience because here the value of practical experience is somewhat at a discount, lt is a pity that the Government's manner of presenting a bill - not this bill in particular - prevents private members, in their own capacity, from making a useful contribution to proposed legislation, although each private member, in his own right, has some valuable experience to draw upon; otherwise he would not be here. This clause is designed to cover future activities but it is also aimed at existing ownership. It restricts ownership to two licences in respect of commercial television stations in Australia and goes on to provide that no one person shall hold more than 15 per cent, of the voting power. I think that that is a reasonable attitude. The general requirements for stock exchange listing, for instance, are that shareholdings be well spread and twenty of the largest shareholders collectively must not exercise more than 66 per cent, of the voting power. The Taxation Branch, of course, rules that if the twenty largest shareholders in a company hold 75 per cent, of the voting power such a company will be taxed as a private company and not as a public company. I believe that the provision in this bill concerning the 15 per cent, interest is reasonable. It could, of course, easily follow that six persons could hold 15 per cent, each and the remaining 10 per cent, of shares could be placed in the names of reliable nominees. I applaud the provision of 80 per cent. Australian ownership but the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** must not deceive himself that he can police completely that provision. The overall picture of government control contained in this clause is not a happy one, but where the Government enters into direction and control there must be the inevitable amount of red tape and restrictions. The holders of a licence will be subject to the vagaries of administration by succeeding governments, but that must be a calculated risk associated with this venture. Proposed new section 92f of the principal act will virtually give the Government control of the share register of any company holding a licence, because it provides that the licence is subject to a condition that substantial - I emphasize the word " substantial " - changes in the beneficial ownership of shares in the company must be approved by the Minister. This may be a good provision, because it will restrict dummying of the kind which has been revealed in the evidence taken at the television inquiry which is continuing its marathon run in Melbourne. But what is the definition of " substantial "? I realize that there must be an elastic figure, but the interpretation is so vague as to be inherently dangerous in administration. Generally speaking, I subscribe to the view that the provisions of this clause are as wide open as are the Sydney Heads, and I have no doubt that if the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** goes back into private practice he will have no difficulty in advising his clients how these provisions may be easily circumvented. {: #debate-32-s13 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- **Mr. Chairman,** I was very interested in the remarks made by the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler).** If the clause is as good as he says it is, there is no reason that I can see for his opposing it - at least, not from my point of view. But from his point of view, of course, it is another step on the road to socialism. It will give the Government quite a lot of control - much more than the honorable member would be prepared to give it. This clause will not stand scrutiny by the High Court of Australia, and I am sure that it will be knocked over. I think that somebody will import into it the implications of section 92 of the Australian Constitution. It is of no use for the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** to try to sooth me with a quiet observation that that will not happen. The honorable gentleman has lost in the High Court as many cases as he has won, or even more than he has won. In the legal profess. o-. of course, a famous barrister has to lose one case out of every two. If he did not, the profession could not continue in existence. And there has always to be a barrister for and a barrister against in each case that goes before a court. We do not attach much importance to the provision with respect to the control of more than 15 per cent, of the voting power in a company, which is contained in proposed new section 92b of the principal act. We think that it was included in the bill in order to quieten the fears of members of the Australian Country Party, and that their leader will be taken for a ride a second time in the way in which he was taken for a ride the first time in relation to the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1959 by the Liberal Party of Australia, as I pointed out yesterday. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- I am not the leader of the Australian Country Party. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- The honorable member is the deputy leader. If he is not the nominal leader, he is the actual leader in this matter. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- What do you know? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I have many ideas, because the onlooker sees most of the game. I want to make only one or two more observations about this clause, **Mr. Chairman.** It is a strange one. It covers about five and one-half pages of the bill, and it includes the whole of proposed new Division 3 of Part IV. of the principal act. I think that the Minister ought to give us a short, concise statement as to the meaning of the proposed new sections to be inserted in the act by this clause. We have proposed new sections 92, 92a, 92b and 92c, most of them with sub-sections (1.) and (2.), and with most of these sub-sections divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). So we have various paragraphs which may be denoted by descriptions such as " 92a (I.) (a)" and " 92a (2.) (a) ". It is all very interesting from the draftsman's point of view, but surely the provisions designed to do what the Government intended to do could have been drafted much better than they have been in the measure which has been presented to us. I am told that the Attorney-General made eight attempts to draft this bill. In other words, he sent, eight drafts to the Cabinet. That is thereason why in the ninth week of this sessional period we are suddenly presented, with a bill which we are asked to pass in the last few hours of that period. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why is the Attorney-General so silent? Why does he not say something? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Because he has not been briefed. Perhaps the honorable member could give him a refresher. I think that two things ought to be said about this clause, **Mr. Chairman.** It contains no provision under which any university in Australia can obtain a licence for a television station. Why should not the cultural instrumentalities in this country be granted television licences? Why should not television be at the disposal of the universities and other education institutions? Why are licences for television stations always handed over to newspaper interests by a board which does what the Government wants it to do? There is a second point which I want to bring to the attention of the AttorneyGeneral, who, as the honorable member for East Sydney says, is as silent as a sphinx in relation to this matter. Why is there no provision in the bill for the protection of radio and television stations in relation to libel? I understand that newspapers have and exercise a qualified privilege, but I do not know under which law they have this right in the various States. I do not know whether or not it is under the common law. Quite a number of people associated with radio stations have told me that they fear what may happen. Particularly at election time radio and television stations broadcast interviews by candidates with press personalities or other people in which the answers given to questions may be regarded as libellous. The broadcasting people may have had no previous knowledge of those answers, but I am told that the broadcasts could be actionable. 1 am told, also, that representatives of the broadcasting organizations have interviewed the Postmaster-General and that he will not do anything about the matter. The AttorneyGeneral, as the law officer of the Government, would naturally and very properly be concerned with a question of this sort, and it is up to him to explain to the committee why no protection for the broadcasting and television stations has been embodied in the bill. If the honorable gentleman sits by and takes no notice of our observations, obviously he neither cares for the arguments that have been presented nor is concerned with the interests of people outside this place. If the situation is safe, let him say so. If he does, he will quiet the fears of quite a lot of people. In the last 24 hours, I have met several persons about the corridors of this building who have asked me to try to clarify the situation. That is all that I want to say about this clause, **Sir. To** the charge that the Opposition is stonewalling on this bill, I give an emphatic denial. We are entitled to discuss all the clauses of the bill, and we have not taken up an inordinate amount of time. Indeed, we have not had much opportunity to examine the bill. If there is to be any stonewalling, we shall see it when clause 28 is being considered, for the rebellious members of the Liberal Party who performed last night will again go into action in order to try to persuade the Government to worsen for the benefit of big vested interests any effective provisions that there may be in the bill. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann: -- That is only wishful thinking. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I know all about it, because the Leader of the House **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has already told me what he fears. {: .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr Wheeler: -- That was said in confidence. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It was not said in confidence. He warned me what to prepare for. {: #debate-32-s14 .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN:
Kingston **.- Mr. Chairman,** I have been waiting patiently for the Postmaster-General to follow up his statement that the second-reading stage was not the appropriate stage at which to explain in detail the provisions embodied in this clause. I hope that we shall not see the spectacle of the discussion of this clause being gagged before the Minister explains fully the meaning of it and before the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** also explains it in detail and deals with the matters that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** Proposed new section 92 of the principal act seeks to limit the ownership and control of commercial television stations by one company or concern to two only. Proposed new section 92b defines the meaning of the term " control " as it is used in these provisions. One of the difficulties about which we are concerned is the problem of establishing the ownership or interest of newspaper companies in respect of television companies, because it seems extremely difficult to establish just who owns what and how much is owned by each interest involved. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Or who commits an offence. {: .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN: -- Or who commits an offence. The Postmaster-General pointed out that the Government recognized that a company may be effectively controlled in a commercial sense by persons who hold less than 51 per cent, of the voting power, and also that in relation to an activity such as the management of a television station control can be exercised by a variety of means other than the possession of voting power at a general meeting. I think the committee is entitled to an explanation by the Attorney-General of the opinion he has given on this provision. The honorable gentleman gave an opinion some time ago when he was engaged by the Herald and Weekly Times Limited. Before he came to this place, he was paid a large amount of money to give an opinion on this matter by the newspapers of Australia which form the combines that control the television stations to-day. At that time, he gave an opinion in which he stated clearly that it would be most difficult to assert how a company was controlled, and that a minority of shareholders could control it. {: .speaker-KWE} ##### Mr Timson: -- Is the honorable member going to continue to read this report? {: .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN: -- If the honorable member for Higinbotham could persuade the Attorney-General, who is paid a salary by this Parliament, to rise in his place and not remain silent, I might stop referring to this legal opinion. The bill has been debated at some length on the second reading and in committee. I do not know whether the Attorney-General is still smarting under the lashing he got when the telephone-tapping legislation was under consideration, but the fact is that he continues to sit in his place like a sulky child and refuses to speak. It is said that this is not his bill, but as he will have to prosecute in any proceedings under this provision of the measure, he is under an obligation to this Parliament to explain just what will happen if charges are laid and cases are submitted to a court. The Attorney-General stated in the opinion he submitted to the Herald and Weekly Times Limited - >For my part as a legal proposition I find the conception of minority shareholders being in a position to exercise control of a company quite untenable and contrary to the relevant and consistent decisions of the courts. I ask the Attorney-General to consider the position of the Herald and Weekly Times Limited in the various companies in which it holds slightly less than 15 per cent, of the shares - the proportion mentioned in this bill. The Herald and Weekly Times Limited has an interest amounting to 14.6 per cent, of the shareholding in the Adelaide television company and 10.5 per cent, in the Brisbane company. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- It just misses control. {: .speaker-K97} ##### Mr GALVIN: -- It seems strange that the proportion is set at 15 per cent, and that the Herald and Weekly Times Limited holds less than that percentage of the shareholdings. In view of the legal opinion expressed previously by the AttorneyGeneral, I urge him to give us the benefit of his knowledge and to tell us whether he believes this legislation could withstand a challenge in the courts. When he gave this opinion, he received a much larger salary that he is receiving now, but, as a servant of the Crown, he should now give the committee the benefit of his legal knowledge and explain the details which the committee finds so complicated. {: #debate-32-s15 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- **Mr. Chairman,** I suppose I shall have to get used to the sort of remarks that I have heard from the honorable member for Kingston **(Mr. Galvin).** In the long run, the people will know that I will serve this Parliament and them as faithfully for a small salary as ever I did a client for a high fee. Any attempt to flick me with a reference to my past fees will just whizz over my shoulder. This bill begins by picking up the existing provision, which is section 91 of the principal act, in clause 27, and restates it as proposed new section 92. It is quite true that I wrote an opinion - which was correct, if I may say so humbly - that under the section as it stood, insofar as you wished to demonstrate that a person was in control of a company by means of a shareholding, it would be necessary to show that he had 5 1 per cent, of the voting power. It is precisely because of that situation that this division of the bill has been brought forward with respect to some of its aspects. It has been necessary, because of what I wrote in that opinion and because of the legal conclusions that are there expressed, to state, by a definition, what amount of voting power will be treated as sufficient to control a company. However you look at it, you have to choose an artificial figure. There may be very many circumstances where you could not possibly control a public company by the use of 15 per cent, of the voting power. There are other circumstances in which it may be possible - very unusual circumstances, I should think - to effect control by a voting power that was slightly less than 15 per cent. In the broad - and that is all we can take - 15 per cent, is selected as the artificial amount, more than which will be artificially treated as giving control of a company. I have some sympathy with those who are untrained in understanding closely expressed language - and this language is closely and very precisely expressed. If honorable members will turn to proposed new section 92b, they will see there a reference to a person who is in a position to exercise control of more than 15 per cent, of the total votes. If honorable members want to discover what is meant by the words " exercise control of more than 15 per cent, of the votes", they must go back to proposed new section 91 (2.). The definition of " control " given in mat proposed section is very wide. It is so expressed as to enable you to fasten on a person as having control if he is, in fact, in control. You can look at all the circumstances. It does not matter that he may be exercising his control, in fact, through arrangements or understandings which are not legally enforceable. The definition of " control " is, I suppose, as wide a definition of control as I have ever seen. It is designed to leave the matter as a straight question of fact unencumbered by what you might call legal considerations. You cannot sidestep it by any argument that the control is not legally enforceable or that there is not a legal arrangement. For example, if a man had shares in his wife's name amounting to 10 per cent, of the total shareholdings, and 5 per cent, in his own name, there would be no trouble in determining that, in fact, he had control of 15 per cent. It would be no good the man saying that some of the shares were in somebody else's - his wife's - name. That is the kind of thing which is covered by the definition of " control ". {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr Bird: -- Do you think a man's wife would agree to that sort of arrangement? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- Any person who had to decide the fact would readily draw the conclusion that a man could persuade his wife to vote the way that he wanted her to vote. Turning then to proposed new section 92a we find that a person shall be deemed to be in a position to exercise control of a licence if that person is in a position to exercise control of the company that holds the licence. So, control of 15 per cent, of the voting strength in a company that holds a licence is regarded as control of the licence. It may well be that a person has less than 15 per cent, of the shareholding but nonetheless, because of other arrangements, is in a position to control 15 per cent. I have already cited the instance of a husband and wife. You could have the instance of partners or people who have all sorts of arrangements whereby one will vote at the wish of the other. All those people are caught by this set of words. The provisions to which I have referred will, to state the matter bluntly, put teeth into section 91 to meet an attempt to exercise control of a licence through shareholding or voting power in a company. This has been done because of the circumstances which were' set out in the opinion that I gave some time ago, which has found so much favour with so many people. It was done because the existing section was limited to legal control through 51 per cent, shareholding. Of course, you may control a licence by means other than voting power. One means of doing so is by having common directorates. Proposed new section 92c is designed to prevent control by this means. It provides that a person shall not be a director of more than two companies each of which is in a position to exercise control of a different licence. I invite honorable members to see just how far that goes. If company A has 30 per cent, of the voting power of one station and, say, 20 per cent, of the voting power of another station, none of the directors of that company could be a director of a third company which had more than a 15 per cent, interest in another licence. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- But it does not stop dummying, does it? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I shall come to dummying in a moment. I suppose that dummying is the hardest thing of all to prevent, but this bill has gone a considerable way towards doing that. I shall indicate in a moment how far it has gone. To return to what I was saying, besides having common directorates, there may be an endeavour to control a licence by agreement or arrangement which may or may not be legally enforceable. Proposed new section 92A(l.)(b) states that a person shall be deemed to be in a position to exercise control of a licence if he is in a position to exercise control of the operations conducted under or by virtue of the licence, the management of the station in respect of which the licence is in force or the selection or provision of the programmes. The net has been cast extremely wide to cover any agreement as to management of the station which will put the party, for the purpose of this act, in control of the station. So if you had a person who was in a position to exercise control of two licences, he could not have an agreement with respect to the management of a third. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #debate-32-s16 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- As no other honorable member has risen to speak, I shall now take my second period. As I have said, if you were in a position to exercise control of two licences, you could not have an agreement with respect to the management of a third. Nor could you have an agreement under which you could provide or select the programmes of the1 third. However, there must be some exceptions to the latter part of the proposed new section to protect genuine, honest, commercial transactions which are not directed towards giving control. Those exceptions are contained in proposed new section 92a (2.). There is the case of the advertiser who makes an agreement that his programme will go on the air at a particular time. He can stipulate that it shall not be used by the station at any other time or, perhaps, not used at all for some time to allow the advertiser to receive the full benefit of that for which he has paid. Then there is the case of the person who sells programmes. The station manager might approach the programme salesman seeking to buy certain programmes. An agreement is made as to when the programmes are to be made available and when they are to be used. A person can exercise the rights granted under a contract created, bona fide, in the ordinary course of business for the purpose only of protecting his own business, and not for the purpose of getting control of the other business. I should have thought that that was both fair and reasonable. It points to the width of proposed new section 92a which seeks to ensure that persons do not breach the existing section 91. There has been no change in fundamental policy. The proposed new section quite clearly strikes at de facto control and not merely control de jure. I was asked about dummies. In an endeavour to prevent dummying, we have provided that only a company can get a licence. The idea behind that is that companies must have a memorandum and articles. Then you begin to provide what the articles and memoranda must contain. Proposed new section 92g makes it clear that the agreement which is constituted by the articles must contain certain provisions. One is that the person seeking to become the holder of shares is required to state whether he holds them beneficially and, if he does not, who is the owner. There must be provisions in the articles to enable the company to require its shareholders to keep that information up to date. Then, at the end of each year, an officer of the company must certify on oath to the Minister that throughout the past period, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the shareholding of the company has not been used to breach the provisions of this act. That is a statement of the position in a simple direct form. Some people might breach this requirement of disclosure of the beneficial interest, and proposed new section 92j in an endeavour - a pretty strong endeavour too - to prevent dummying in an undisclosed way. Proposed new section 92j states that if a shareholder on the register is not the legal and beneficial owner and the trust under which he holds the shares has not been notified the trust is invalid for all purposes; so the chap who has been dummying puts himself entirely at the mercy of the trustee, who can say, " It is very nice, my friend, but you do not get them back ". That is a tremendous risk and the sort of risk that people who indulge in dummying do not like to take. If anything in this act is an earnest of how serious this Governmen is about this matter, proposed new section 92j is, because it provides that the trust will be void for all purposes. Honorable members know very well that the decisions of the High Court with respect to broadcasting place it on the telecommunications power, but there has never been a decision yet as to whether any form of control of television is within the telecommunications power. That is a completely undecided question. But the existing section 91 has been in the statute unchallenged since 1955 or 1956. This measure will do nothing more in relation to the constitutional power than does the existing section 91, with the possible exception of proposed new section92J, which makes void the trust instrument for all purposes. One offers an opinion in these areas with a great deal of humility, because it is as hard to be right as it is easy to be wrong. But, for what it is worth, I think the whole of the provisions are good and will hold water and, if this Government wants me to, I will be pleased to stand up for them in the court if they are challenged. I have not troubled to go through the detail as to the various other things which are required to be in the articles of the company, but with that explanation I think honorable members can follow that this portion of the bill is an endeavour to put teeth in section 91 which is repeated as clause 92 in the bill. It is an endeavour to prevent control de facto, through voting power or by any other means, such as contracts, or arrangements or even a nod of the head or anything from which it can be concluded that control in fact exists. It is an endeavour to prevent control through common directorates, or dummying or through any manner of agreement or arrangement, legal or otherwise, whereby the management of a station may fall under the hands of a person, or the selection of programmes and so on. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- Would you say it provides tighter control than the Australian Industries Preservation Act does? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- I think it does. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- That act has only been invoked once - unsuccessfully - as a safeguard against monopolies. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- There are other difficulties in that act which are not present in this. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** mentioned section 92 of the Constitution. I have not been inexperienced in that section and with the best flight of imagination I do not think I could fetch it into this subject at all. If some one offered me that brief I think it would be a pretty dry piece of bread. Finally, one has to bear in mind always that people can get into situations unwittingly not intending to breach a statute. So it is provided in proposed new section 92k that the person who is prosecuted for being in control of three stations can defend himself by proving that he came into that situaion unwittingly and that as soon as he found out he got out- {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- That is the escape clause. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- /There-, is no escape at all, because the onus is on him and he has to establish two material things - that he got into the situation blindly - I do not see how he could - and that he got out of it as soon as he found out. {: #debate-32-s17 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- lt is quite obvious, **Mr. Chairman,** that these intricate provisions of the bill are only understood by very few - if more than one - on the Government side, and I think it would have been advisable for the Government to have prepared a short statement, something along the lines of what was contained in the Attorney-General's speech, for the information of members so that they could at least have had some idea of what the Government claimed it was endeavouring to do. But the Government did not do that, and it was only with great reluctance that the Attorney-General even came into the discussion to give us the benefit of his legal knowledge. He commenced by rebuking one of my colleagues because he quoted an earlier opinion which the Attorney-General gave before becoming a member of this Parliament. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- I did not do anything of the kind. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- That is my understanding of what the Attorney-General said. It is quite clear that what the Attorney-General is now stating to the committee is that this bill is to correct that opinion which he claimed, at the time he gave it, was the correct opinion in regard to the position of those who claimed to be controlling companies. He mentioned the figure 51 per cent., but I take it that he meant one share more than half, because I imagine that would be a controlling interest in any company. I am of the opinion, like the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler),** particularly after hearing the AttorneyGeneral's explanation of what the bill proposes, that it is as wide as Sydney Heads; and if the Government gets a conviction against anybody under these provisions, all I can say is that I have completely misjudged the situation. The honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Reynolds)** raised the question of an earlier statute which was claimed to be designed to deal with the question of monopolies, and the Attorney-General admitted that the provisions of that statute had been invoked on only one occasion, and unsuccessfully, so that the Australian Industries Preservation Act was a completely ineffective statute passed by this Parliament. And even after amendment, it is still an ineffective piece of legislation to deal with the control of monopolies in this country. Does any one imagine that the provisions of this bill are going to be any more effective than the previous efforts of the Government to deal with monopolies? I listened very attentively to what the Attorney-General had to say and it would appear to me that it would be almost impossible to secure a great deal of the necessary information. How is the Government going to secure it? Of course, the Attorney-General says in regard to dummies that the trust would be invalid unless it was a trust which had been declared. But that is only one way in which there can be dummying. I have no doubt that people who work in the same section of the business community, and who want to find ways of getting around the provisions of this bill, will have no difficulty in doing it, because in my opinion it has been done on previous occasions. Therefore, the Government wants to make it appear to the Australian community that there has been nothing in the charge made by the Labour Opposition that these great mediums of propaganda are falling under the monopolistic control of people who hold an entirely opposite political point of view to that of the Labour Party. The Government knows that in the eyes of the Australian public that fact has been causing a great deal of concern, because the people know the tendency of this Government to work, whilst claiming that it espouses the cause of democratic government, towards the objective of having one party government in this country - the party with the political viewpoint which it holds. There is only one way in which this situation can effectively be met and no doubt the next Labour Government, which is approximately eighteen months away, when it gets the opportunity to do something in regard to the control of television as well as radio, will set out to do what the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** indicated, and that is not what the members of the Government said is our intention or our belief. We do not seek control of these mediums of propaganda in order to stifle the political voices of the parties to which we are opposed. We want to establish the greatest freedom with respect to television just as we want it in connexion with the radio and the press, and we believe that the only way in which that can be ensured in this country is to nationalize the television and radio systems, not to allow control to remain in the hands of private enterprise. When we speak of nationalization we do not mean nationalization in the sense that some members of the Government would have the Australian community believe we mean it. We hope to have the opportunity of bringing these great systems of disseminating propaganda under control and then to rent out time, whether it be over the television or radio, to people of all political thought and to all interests in the community which may have a viewpoint to express. The way in which control over these matters has been developing is seriously prejudicing the continuance of democratic government in Australia. Under the present system, how can any political party which has not control of television stations get its message across to the people? This Government might say that there are no Liberal-controlled television stations in this country. There may be none in the sense that no licence has been issued to a political party which calls itself the Liberal Party, but the people of Australia are not so naive as not to recognize that every television station in Australia is owned by people who are associated politically with this Government. I should mention here that trades and labour councils and other Labour organizations made minute contributions of trade union capital to certain broacasting organizations, believing that by investing some capital in stations, they would have some measure of control and thereby gain an opportunity under the arrangements into which they had entered, to have certain time allotted to them in the various programmes, so that their message might be conveyed to the Australian community. But, immediately they had invested their capital, they found that according to the conditions under which the licences were issued, no free time could be allotted to the trade union movement despite the fact that it had invested capital. It was no better off than it would have been had it invested no capital at all. It is obvious that if the Labour Party is to continue to exist in this country and if we are to continue to believe in democratic government, we shall have to do something about this state of affairs. We are not going to be scared off because somebody says, " Ah, nationalization! We will be able to use that in the election. We will be able to frighten the Australian community." I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the Australian people to believe that when they hear the case for the Labour Party they will see to it that a Labour government is returned to correct the situation that is developing in Australia now. When dealing with earlier provisions, the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** said, "This is designed to put teeth into section 91 of the act ". All I can say is that if these are the teeth the Government proposes putting into section 91, they are false teeth and will be useless. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Motion (by **Mr. Davidson)** put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 58 NOES: 30 Majority . . 28 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 28 - >After section one hundred and five of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Division 5 of Part IV.: - " 105a.- (1.) " (8.) In this section - licensee ', in relation to a national television station, means the Commission; person ' includes the Commission; television film ' or ' film ' means a photographic film (including a sound recording for use in conjunction with such a film) intended for use for televising, other than a film consisting of commercial advertising matter, and, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a particular film includes a reference to any print of that film.". {: #debate-32-s18 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP . -I move - >In proposed new section 105a. omit sub-section (8.), insert the following sub-sections: - " ' (8.) The Board may, in its discretion, order a party to proceedings before the Board under this section to pay to another party such amount in respect of costs as is fixed by the Board, and the party to whom the costs are payable may recover the amount of the costs as a debt by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. (9.) Where the Board makes an order under sub-section (1.) of this section, the person against whom the order is made may appeal against the order to the Commonwealth Industrial Court on the ground - > >that he had a reasonable ground of objection to the making of the order; or > >that the terms and conditions specified in the order are not just and reasonable in all the circumstances. (10.) The Commonwealth Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal under this section, and shall - > >if it is satisfied that the ground of appeal specified in paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section has been established - quash the order; > >if it is satisfied that the ground of appeal specified in paragraph (b) of the last preceding sub-section has been establishedeither quash the order or direct that the order be varied in such manner as will, in the judgment of the Court, make the terms and conditions just and reasonable in all the circumstances; or > >if it is not satisfied that a ground of appeal has been established - dismiss the appeal. (11.) An appeal under this section shall be by way of re-hearing, but the Court may have regard to any evidence given before the Board. (12.) The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth > >Industrial Court under this section may be exercised by a single Judge. (13.) Sub-sections (5.) and (6.) of this section apply both in and outside Australia, and, for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to courts with respect to any offence arising under either of those subsections outside Australia, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed at any place in Australia where the offender is found, resides or carries on business. (14.) In this section - " licensee ", in relation to a national television station, means the Commission; " person " includes the Commission; " television film " or " film " means any photo graphic film, magnetic tape or other thing from which images can be reproduced and which is intended for use for televising images (not being commercial advertisements), and includes a sound recording for use in conjunction with any such film, tape or other thing. (15.) In this section, unless the contrary inten tion appears, a reference to a particular television film includes a reference to any print, copy or facsimile of that television film.'.". Clause 28 is intended to give effect to the Government's desire to prevent any cornering of television programmes and is part of its plan to ensure that the whole of the television medium will not become a monopoly in the hands of the few. I want to deal very briefly with the main aspects of the proposed new section 105a, which is inserted by clause 28. Proposed new sub-section (1.) provides that, if a person who has control of a television film refuses to make it available to the licensee of a television station or will only do so on terms that seem unreasonable to the licensee, the licensee may apply to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for an order directing the film to be made available to him. Proposed new sub-section (2.) requires that the board shall then hold an inquiry. Sub-section (3.) provides that the board is not entitled to make an order if it is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought has a reasonable ground of objection. Sub-section (4.) sets out some of the matters which could be taken as reasonable grounds of objection. Generally speaking, these matters are intended to safeguard legitimate commercial interests in a competitive industry. For instance, a station having possession of a film will not be required to make it available to another station in the same area and an order would not be made which would cause a breach of a reasonable condition imposed by an advertiser. All I have done is to outlone briefly some of the provisions of the proposed new section to show what it means, and I point out that other sub-sections deal with various other matters. However, representations have been made on this subject. It has been pointed out that in such a matter as this, involving the acquisition of programmes at considerable expense by a licensee probably from some source which involves the possibility of the licensee requiring to hold the programmes for some time, some provision should be made for an appeal against an order by the board that the licensee should make the programmes available to an applicant. We have agreed that such a provision should be made, and this is done in the amendment. Let me make it plain that the amendment provides than an application for a film from" an owner still has the right to go to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and ask for an order directing that the film should be made available, with the qualifications which are clearly expressed. However, if the board decides that the programme should be made available, the owner of the film would have the right of appeal. Proposed new sub-section (8.) in the amendment is inserted in an effort to ensure that no foolish application will be made for an order that a film be made available. I commend the amendment to the committee. {: #debate-32-s19 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- The amendment just moved by the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** indicates that the honorable gentleman is endeavouring to curtail the activities of some of the larger television stations which are trying to buy up television programmes and keep them from the smaller and newer television stations and1 also to prevent groups and individuals from doing the same thing. However, there is one portion of this problem which I feel the Postmaster-General has not considered or, at least, has not attempted to include in this bill, and that is the development of the Australian film industry. This industry has been going for some years but has received very little assistance from any government. At the inception of television in 1956, it was hoped that the Australian film industry would develop and prosper. But instead of that, after about 1957 it was found that most of the programmes being shown on television were imported. Even the commercials, to a large extent, were being imported. No consideration has been given by the Government up to this stage to the fostering of the Australian film industry. In 1957, the Postmaster-General remarked that there was no film industry in Australia. I suggest to the honorable gentleman that if he investigates the actions that have been taken by various overseas companies, he will find that most of them have attempted to foster production for the home market. They have introduced a quota for homeproduced films. There is also tariff protection against the imported product. Financial assistance is given to home production and a subsidy is provided to overcome economic problems. I recommend to the PostmasterGeneral that the film industry in Australia is worth developing and that consideration should be given to the points I have raised, particularly to stipulating that a certain percentage of programmes shown on television shall be Australian-produced, and, in particular, that all commercials shall be Australian-produced. The matter of subsidies and inducing overseas companies to make film in Australia should be looked at while the whole subject is under consideration. I congratulate the Postmaster-General on his endeavour to tie up the monopoly practice which might have existed in television programmes, but I also make a plea to him to consider giving some subsidy or economic assistance to the Australian film industry. {: #debate-32-s20 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs .- I wish to make some observations on this amendment which introduces some new principles and indicates to me that it may interfere with the liberty of the subject. Although I appreciate the advantages that have been outlined by the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** which are quite good, I think it does interfere with the liberty of the subject to sell the products of his own brain to the highest bidder. When it comes to the question of the individual himself, it definitely restricts his creative ability and consequently his opportunity to get the best possible return. Last night during the debate, I pointed out the weaknesses of the bill, particularly in relation to this clause, but at the risk of repetition I propose to refer to some of those matters again. This amendment is designed to prevent monopoly in television films - in other words, to prevent a ring or a cornering of the market. The injustice that will flow from this action will eventually dampen down the creative ability of the artists to whom we look for entertainment. I understand, from the Minister's speech, that he is aware of what is happening to the great film industry where rings or monopolies have operated. We all hope that nothing like that will occur in the television industry. No evidence has been produced during this debate that such rings exist, nor has any indication that they exist been given during the Australian Broadcasting Control Board's inquiry into this particular matter. In fact, to-day, that board was told by a director of a broadcasting service which intends, if it gets a licence, to operate in a country area of Victoria, that it will cater for local talent in whatever form it may be offering and will promote competition within that area. Right through that inquiry the impression has been given that country stations would provide in their programmes a very high content of local presentation. One gathers that the films required for the limited hours of television would be fairly restricted. This indicates that at present television film exchanges in operation throughout the Commonwealth are not having very great difficulty in distributing their films. This clearly indicates that there is no difficulty in obtaining television films at the present time. Therefore, no corner, or monopoly, exists. But what I am particularly concerned about is the counter-action which might arise from this amendment which is being proposed in an effort to control monopolization. The opposite result will take place. I want to refer particularly to the Australian playwright and film maker who feels that whilst he would make very little impact on, we will say, the great foreign picture film industry he has opportunities in the television industry to do something to provide entertainment and also to make a mark for himself in that field. The encouragement he gets to do this is the reward he will receive if he is successful in producing something that is keenly sought. Whilst this clause intends to control the big companies I think that eventually the incentive that the small author will have will be to try to produce something that will merit a great reward. The playwright's starting point in television is when he is able to have his play televised and perhaps the film of it accepted by others and possibly sought by many. I believe that he will be encouraged when he believes that there are no obstacles placed in his way to prevent him from receiving the substantial reward which is his if he can deliver the goods, to use a colloquial expression. Under the provisions of the bill I think there will be interference with that reward, particularly if he knows he will have to make his film available, not to the highest bidder but to anybody who is prepared to go to the board about it. [Quorum formed.] Such a writer will have to get from the board its assessment of what is considered to be reasonable terms on which he should make his film available to everybody who has approached the board about it. The question that arises here is: What is the product of a man's brains worth? What is the yardstick that the board will use in deciding the value of this man's film? I believe that such a work cannot be evaluated in any other way than by ascertaining what the buyer is prepared to pay and what the seller is prepared to accept. Once you introduce any other method into the matter it must definitely have a most reactionary effect on the price the young playwright is going to get for his work. Therefore I can see that this clause does more than merely help to prevent monopolies. It introduces a new principle which affects, I believe, the liberty of the individual. In other words, it provides for compulsory acquisition of personal property. In this case the property happens to be the personal property of a young playwright. {: #debate-32-s21 .speaker-L0V} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Wight:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-32-s22 .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt .- This clause, which is ostensibly designed to prevent monopolies and restrictive practices, in my opinion plays right into the hands of monopolists and will encourage restrictive practices. The producer and the playwright are to be sacrificed for the benefit of the monopolists and nearmonopolists who control television stations. The provision that we discussed just now is designed to place some control on, and to prevent the creation of, monopolies. In my opinion, it does not go nearly far enough. A provision allowing a person to control two television stations and also to have a 15 per cent, interest in other stations seems to me to provide a let-out for people who wish to get some kind of control over a great many stations. Under this provision the playwright and the producer will have little opportunity to hold out against the power and wealth of the monopoly stations. Let me give the committee an example of what could happen. Let us suppose that a young man goes to New Guinea with a television camera. Assume that he is fortunate enough to be there at the time of an eruption of Manam Island and is able to take a film which has international value. He brings this film back to Australia. Perhaps he regards it as worth £100,000. One of these wealthy stations offers him £5,000 for the film, and says, " If you don't sell it for that figure, we will take you before the board. We will employ the best counsel we can get in Australia. And don't forget, **Mr. Playwright,** if you lose the case you will have to pay the costs ". In other words. **Sir, these** big stations will be able eventually to blackmail, and put pressure on the producer, forcing him to sell on their terms, regardless of his property rights. I cannot think that the Minister or the Government intended this result. I believe that they genuinely attempted to prevent what is undoubtedly an evil - the combination of monopolies and restrictive practices. However, I think that their eyes were turned entirely upon the television stations and they were thinking of dealing with the case of one television station refusing to sell to another television station. They entirely overlooked the case for the producer and the playwright. They overlooked the man who, probably at very great expense, has produced a valuable film. I feel that this clause must be amended, so as to protect the producer and the playwright. The Government should also consider the small man who conducts a business of purchasing a small number of television films and selling them to the stations. These small men will not be able to stand up to the might and monopoly of the television stations. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he have another look at this clause. I do not think it is achieving the purpose that he intends it to achieve. I consider that it is extremely dangerous and it does not protect the Australian producer, playwright, actor and singer. In my opinion under this clause they are being sacrificed to the big monopolies. {: #debate-32-s23 .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr WHEELER:
Mitchell .- I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** is not in the chamber at the moment, because I wanted to take him up on certain remarks that he made during the debate, when he intimated the tenor of the conversations he had with the Leader of the House **(Mr. Harold Holt)** concerning gentlemen on this side of the chamber. I thought that these discussions would be on a confidential level, particularly as there must be some degree of mutual horse trading between the Leaders of the two main parties. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition has little respect for these confidences, and the Leader of the House might well bear this in mind when indulging in unfavorable comments concerning honorable members on this side of the chamber. I do consider that the Leader of the Opposition was drawing somewhat from his imagination when he referred to this matter. 1 shall now devote myself to the proposed section under consideration. I contend that it walks through the back door of the Constitution to prices control. It is a slick piece of draftsmanship and if, in operation, it mows down a Liberal principle or two, I expect that we are asked to accept it on its face value although the means to the end may be suspect. It is conceded that under the Constitution the Commonwealth has no power over the fixing of prices. The Chifley Government abandoned its war-time control when the war emergency legislation lapsed, but in 1960 we are entering a new era. Despite legal double talk on the clause, the fact emerges that the board, as a separate entity, can if it so desires exercise the power of prices control. Call it by what name you will, the provision proposes to give this power to the board. It may be argued that the power will never be used, but the inescapable fact is that once the bill is passed the power does exist, and it is superfluous to say that it should be carefully watched. I am glad that the Government has at last seen the light of reason and has agreed to certain amendments giving the right of appeal from the decision of the board on various matters relating to television films. This removes one serious objection that I had against the proposed section but its general provisions still engender conflict with my own liberal principles. I find that it is completely useless to debate this matter further. The Government has made up its mind, and that is final. Owing to the manner in which the Government has handled this bill, a private member has not been afforded the time to move amendments, and even if it were possible to move amendments, it would be absolutely futile to do so. I have no desire to waste my time and the time of the committee on such a negative course of action. {: #debate-32-s24 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Paterson .- I do not propose to detain the committee very long at this time but I want to voice my objection to the whole of this clause. I do so on the ground that I hold the provisions of it to be completely unnecessary in a situation where it has not been proved that there is a dearth of programme material for television in Australia. If there were such a dearth, perhaps some legislation to prevent programme material from being held out of use would be reasonable, but in the absence of evidence that there is a dearth I believe that this sort of provision ought not to appear in television legislation. I rather content myself with being satisfied that, following the objections of myself and of a number of my colleagues on this side and, I think, on the other side of the House, the Government has seen fit to bring in some amendment which will give some additional protection. Beyond that, having a look at the safeguards provided, I think that the whole scheme may well be unworkable. With my colleague, the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler).** I believe that it will not be brought into use. To the extent that it offends liberal principles and invades private property rights, I think the bill would be better if this provision were left out altogether. I should like to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to two matters. The first deals with proposed section 105a (1.). which I read to mean that a person who. in America, acquires the rights to deal in television programme material would be prevented from setting up a distributing agency in Australia and giving to that agency the sole rights to handle that material and make contracts for its use. This seems to be an odd sort of interference with the ordinary channels of doing business in this field, and I hope that it does not mean what I think it means. If it does, 1 believe there ought to be some change in it to prevent that sort of interference. Both the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** and the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** are in the chamber, and perhaps one of them will give me his advice on this matter. I refer now to the only other point which warrants a lot of consideration at this time. "If this part of the legislation is to be used, there is a grave danger of difficulties arising under proposed section 105a (7.) (a), which provides that the preceding subsection does not prevent the making of an agreement preventing a television station serving an area coinciding to a substantial extent with the area served by that particular station or one of those particular stations from obtaining the use of the film, and so on. This is designed to protect the ownership of a programme and to prevent the Broadcasting Control Board from ordering the sale of that programme by a station to another station that serves substantially the same area. Of course, when one talks about radio service and " sub? stantially the same area ", one imports the basis for a good deal of possible disputation. To the extent that this question of radio coverage is capable of precise definition, I believe it would be very wise to amend this paragraph so that there is this precise definition. I believe that this paragraph ought to read: " to prevent a television station whose primary service area coincides to a substantial extent with the primary service area of another station ", and so on. If the term " primary service area ". which carries a very definite connotation technically, is not sufficient, then the field strength of that service area could be actually defined. I know that is not a tremendously important provision if my earlier remarks that the scheme is either unworkable or unnecessary and will not be used, are valid but nevertheless I commend it to the Postmaster-General. {: #debate-32-s25 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- During the second-reading debate I was very critical of the philosophy resident in this provision. In particular I was disturbed that an administrative board would be called upon to act in a judicial capacity. I should like to thank most warmly the Government, and the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** in particular for having provided the right of appeal by the party involved in these provisions. I can assure him that, in very great measure, he has met the objection. I think that he has relieved the anxiety of a number of members on this side of the House. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 29 to 35 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clauses 25a, 25b and 26a. {: #debate-32-s26 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- by leave - I move - >After clause 25, insert the following new clauses: - "25a. Section eighty-two of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - . (3.) This section does not apply in relation to the renewal of a licence.'.". " 25b. Section, eighty-six of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.) and inserting in their stead the following subsections: - (3.) The suspension of a licence shall be for a specified period not exceeding seven days. (4.) If, within the period for which a licence is suspended on a particular ground, the Minister notifies the Board that it appears to him that he should consider revoking the licence upon that ground, the suspension shall, by force of this subsection, continue until - > >the Board (if it sees fit to do so before the completion of the inquiry) orders that the suspension shall cease; > >the Board has made a report recommending that the licence be not revoked on that ground; or > >the Board has made a report recommending that the licence be revoked on that ground and the Minister has either revoked the licence or, having decided not to revoke the licence, removes the suspension.'.". > >After clause 26, insert the following new clause: - " 26a. After section eighty-seven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 87a. - (1.) A person whose licence is revoked under section eighty-six of this Act may appeal to the Commonwealth Industrial Court against the revocation. (2.) The Commonwealth Industrial Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal under this section, and shall - > >if it is satisfied that the ground for the revocation has been established - confirm the revocation; or > >if it is not so satisfied - order that the licence be restored by the Minister. (3.) An appeal under this section shall be by way of rehearing, but the Court may have regard to any evidence given before the Board at the inquiry that preceded the revocation. (4.) The jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Industrial Court under this section may be exercised by a single Judge.'.". Section 82 of the principal act provides for the renewal of licences. As the section stands at present, it reads - >Before granting a licence under the last preceding section, the Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, invite applications for the grant of the licence. The legal opinion which has been given to us is that the renewal of a licence could be construed as the granting of a licence. Therefore we want to provide that there is no need, before renewing a licence, to call for applications and for the board to hold an inquiry. Proposed new section 25b is intended further to guard a licensee against any action by any person which could affect unfairly the holding of his licence. From sub-section 4 of proposed new section 86 of the principal act it will be seen how extra coverage is being given in instances which may arise. The third new clause for the adoption of which I have moved is proposed new clause 26a, which provides for appeals to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- Will that need any ultimate amendment to the industrial arbitration legislation? {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON: -- No. We have discussed this with the Attorney-General **(Sir** Garfield Barwick) and he says that this will be within the powers of the court, the powers of which will be somewhat extended. Both this appeal and the one to which we agreed earlier will be to the court. I have the assurance of the Attorney-General that this will be within the ambit of the court. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- Would the honorable member care to have it looked at in another place? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- No. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON: -- The AttorneyGeneral is quite satisfied that this is perfectly sound and within the ambit of the Industrial Court. I ask the AttorneyGeneral now, whether that is right. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- Yes. {: #debate-32-s27 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
Blaxland -- The explanation given by the Postmaster-General **(Mr.** Davidson) is satisfactory. I was not trying to raise difficulties. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** will understand my thoughts on this subject. The question in my mind was whether, in view of the wording of the arbitration legislation at the moment, disputation on this subject could go to the Industrial Court. Proposed new clauses agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Mr. Davidson)** - by leave - proposed - >That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- I regret having to speak to the motion for the third reading of the bill but there are a couple of points which I want to bring to the notice of the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** in relation to the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. First of all, I would like him to consider, in the course of the next few days, whether he will see that the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is made permanent. I understand that there is a great number of temporary and auxiliary staff employed by the commission at the present time. If temporary officers are appointed to higher positions, the permanent officer has no right of appeal. I feel that that position should be examined. If a man is to be employed by the commission he should be put on a permanent basis. If this suggestion cannot be accepted, then I suggest that if a temporary employee is upgraded, so that he is placed above a permanent employee, the permanent employee should have the right of appeal to the Appeal Board. I think all outside appointments by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should be tabled in this Parliament, as I understand is required in the case of Public Service appointments. 1 would like the Minister to consider these two points, because it is of paramount importance that staff relations in the Australian Broadcasting Commission be cordial. The commission has done a remarkable job for Australia in the television and broadcasting fields. It is perhaps the only radio or television organization that endeavours to raise the cultural standards of Australia, and if the employees of the commission are dissatisfied with their employment, then the efficiency the moderation and the impartiality of the commission will deteriorate. I ask the Minister sincerely to consider these suggestions. I realize that it is possible that he does not know about these matters, but I ask him to have a look at them and to do something about the posiion, so that the Australian Broadcasting Commission can continue to give the same high standard of service that it has given in the past, and so that staff relations may remain satisfactory. In this way the commission can continue to do everything possible to raise the standards of radio and television services. Friday, 20 May 1960 **Mr. DAVIDSON** (Dawson - Postmaster- General) [12.2 a.m.]. - I want to reply very briefly to the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** He suggested that I did not know very much about the conditions of employment in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think I do, because I have made some study of them. I agree entirely with the honorable member that it is highly desirable that the employees of the commission should work under conditions with which they are fully satisfied so that they may be able to give of their best. But the reason why I rose to speak is to tell the honorable member that the conditions that have been written into the legislation, and which I believe will improve the position of employees generally, have been adopted at the request of the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself. The commission wishes to provide the best salaries and conditions of employment that it can devise for its employees, and it has requested that these provisions be incorporated in the legislation. The honorable member has asked me to consider the various matters he has put forward in the last few minutes, and to try to ensure that everything that can be done will be done towards providing the best conditions of employment for those who serve the commission. Of course I shall be glad to do that, and I know that in doing so I shall have the co-operation of the members of the commission. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2033 {:#debate-33} ### PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1960 {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1712), on motion by **Mr. Davidson.** That the bill be now a second time. {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- This bill is designed to preserve in the archives of the Parliament recordings of speeches made in the Parliament on various occasions. The Australian Broadcasting Commission enjoys a power under the existing legislation by which speeches made on memorable occasions, such as that of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen, are recorded and put away for posterity and for those interested in history and like subjects. The bill deals with matters affecting the ordinary activities of the Parliament. One of our colleagues in the Labour Party caucus suggested that maiden speeches of members of Parliament might be recorded, because posterity may be interested in the first speech delivered by a man who subsequently became a Prime Minister. I remember asking my colleague whether he wished to make the legislation retrospective. However, aside from its humorous aspects I think the bill has merit, and the Opposition does not offer any objection to it. We will be sorry to see quite a few honorable members leave this Parliament after the next election, and perhaps a special provision might be inserted in the bill so that recordings may be made not only of maiden speeches but also of famous last words. The Minister would not, of course, accept an amendment on those lines at this late hour, and so the suggestion will be left for some other Government to think about and act upon if it deems it desirable to do so. We give the bill our blessing. We let the previous bill pass without unnecessary divisions, although there was a lot of argument about it and we of the Opposition could not approve of all its provisions. But as to this measure, we wish it well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2034 {:#debate-34} ### PRINTING COMMITTEE {: #debate-34-s0 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- I present the first report of the Printing Committee. Report read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted. {: .page-start } page 2034 {:#debate-35} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: - >Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill 1960. > >National Service (Discharge of Trainees) Bill 1960. > >Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill (No. 2) 1960. > >Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1960. > >Copper Bounty Bill 1960. > >Judiciary Bill 1960. {: .page-start } page 2034 {:#debate-36} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to - >That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 31st May, at 2.30 p.m. House adjourned at 12.11 a.m. (Friday). {: .page-start } page 2034 {:#debate-37} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Oil {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA s asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that a director of the Soviet Export Commission recently visited Australia? 1. Did this Soviet official offer oil for sale at prices lower than those at which oil is supplied to Australia at present? 2. What were the prices quoted by the Soviet official? 3. At what prices is oil supplied to Australia at present? {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. **Mr. I.** Fedorov, a representative of the Soviet Foreign Trade Corporation, which exports crude oil and various oil products, visited Australia recently. 1. **Mr. Fedorov** visited Australia in a business capacity and made his own contacts with representatives of oil companies. As in the case of other visiting businessmen, the question of prices would be a matter for private negotiation. The Government was not represented at discussions **Mr. Fedorov** had with oil industry representatives and is not aware of the prices he quoted. 2. See answer to question 2. 3. There are considerable differences in the f.o.b. prices of crude oil imported by local refineries due to such factors as quality variations in crude oils from different countries of origin. The sources of crude oil imports into Australia during 1958-59 together with quantities and f.o.b. values as published by the Commonwealth Statis- tician in the 1958-59 Oversea Trade Bulletin are shown in the following table: - {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Tariff Board {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the circumstances associatedwith the discontinuance of the services of **Mr. Albert** Date as a member of the Tariff Board? 1. Did **Mr. Date,** prior or subsequent to the termination of his services, make any charges against any other member of the Tariff Board, the Minister or the board generally? 2. If so, what are the details? 3. Was any action taken to investigate **Mr. Date's** charges; if so, what was the outcome of the inquiries? 4. What courses are available to **Mr. Date** to have the matters of which he complained further investigated if he is dissatisfied with the result of inquiries already made? {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On 1st October, 1958, in reply to a question by the honorable member for Yarra, I stated that the Government had decided not to re-appoint **Mr. A.** Date as a member of the Tariff Board after the expiration of his present term of office. The act provides that members are eligible for re-appointment, but the question of re-appointment like that of the original appointment must be, and is, determined by the Government. It is neither usual nor desirable for reasons to be given in relation to individual appointments. 1. Yes. 2. On 27th August, 1959, in reply to a question by the honorable member for East Sydney I stated that since **Mr. Date** was appointed to the Tariff Board early in 1954 he has addressed more than 260 letters and telegrams of complaint and protest to His Excellency the Governor-General, and the right honorable the Prime Minister, **Mr. Speaker,** Ministers, members of Parliament, permanent heads and officers of various departments. 3. There has been most careful investigation and consideration of **Mr. Date's** complaints and *appropriate action has* been taken from time to time. 4. As indicated above, **Mr. Date's** complaints were considered very carefully. He was also acquainted with the legal advice which was given in respect of them. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Rural Research Organizations {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP r asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which rural industries have established research organizations or research funds over the last ten years? 1. How has the Government assisted in this development? 2. How are these funds financed in each case? 3. What contributions are made by (a) producers and (b) the Government? 4. What is the membership of the various research committees? 5. How are the funds used to further research? {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann:
CP -- The following are the answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Legislation has been enacted to set up Trust Funds or Trust Accounts dealing with the following primary industries: wool, wheat, tobacco, dairy produce (butter and cheese), wine and beef. 1. The Government has stated from time to time that it would give consideration to financially supporting any reasonable research plan put forward by a primary industry. It has negotiated with the industries that have presented their plans and has agreed to contribute to those plans which it has approved. 2. and 4. Wool Research Trust Fund.- This Fund which is established under the Wool Research Act, 1957, is financed by contributions of 2s. per bale from woolgrowers and 4s. per bale from the Commonwealth Government on all wool sold each year. In addition the Fund receives interest on its capital reserves, which now amount to £8,331,000 as a result of the transfer of the capital from the Wool Industry Fund and of the balance of the funds administered by the Australian Wool Realization Commission. Wheat Research Trust Account. - This Trust Account was established under the Wheat Research Act, 1957. The growers contribute id. per bushel on all wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board and the moneys so collected are paid into the Wheat Research Trust Account. A separate account has been opened within the Trust Account for each State and the moneys realized by levy are credited to each State account on a pro rata basis. Interest on Trust Account investments is also shared amongst the State accounts. Under the Wheat Acquisition (Undistributed Moneys) Act 1958, the sum of £284,418, representing undistributed fractions from war-time wheat pools, was credited to the State accounts within the Wheat Research Trust Account in accordance with the Schedule to the Act. Tobacco Industry Trust Account. - The funds for this Trust Account are derived from - (i) Growers at the rate of id. per lb. on all leaf sold. (ii) manufacturers at the rate of1d. per 1b. on all leaf purchased. (iii) C.S.I.R.O.- £10,500 per year. (iv) Commonwealth - £10,500 per year. (v) Tobacco Leaf Production Grant of £15,000 per year from the Commonwealth and £15,000 per year from the tobacco-growing States, i.e., Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia combined. Dairy Produce Research Trust Account. - Under the Research and Sales Promotion Act 1958 producers have agreed to pay a research and sales promotion levy on production of butter and cheese. For research, the current rate of levy is one-sixteenth pence per lb. commercial butter and one-thirty-second pence per lb. cheese. The Government contributes an amount equal to one half of the costs incurred on projects included in the programmes of research that are endorsed by the Australian Dairy Produce Board and approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Sales Promotion programme is financed entirely by the industry levy which is currently one-eighth pence per1b. on commercial butter and one-sixteenth pence per lb. on cheese. Wine Research Trust Fund. - Under the Wine Research Act No. 11 of 1955 the sum of £500,000 was made available from a Wine Industry Assistance Account (established by the Wine Export Bounty Act of 1947) for the establishment of the Australian Wine Research Institute, which is a limited liability company established under the Companies Act of South Australia. When the Export Bounty on wine was abolished in 1947, there remained £1.1 million in the Wine Export Encouragement Account, the account from which bounty was paid. This sum had been collected from an additional Excise duty on spirit used in fortifying wine, which was also abolished in 1947. After consulting the Tariff Board, the Government decided to reserve £500,000 of these funds for use in some way which would assist the wine industry and passed legislation accordingly. After further consultation with the Tariff Board the Government enacted the Wine Research Act which earmarked up to £100,000 for capital expenditure by the Institute (from this amount a modern laboratory and pilot winery has been built at Urrbrae, South Australia) and appropriates the balance of £400,000 to the Wine Research Trust Fund (a Treasury trust fund) with the income accruing therefrom - at present £18,000 per annum - to be made available to the Institute to finance programmes of research approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. A special provision of the Act is that, unless the Australian Wine Board contributes not less than £4,000 per annum to the Institute, the Minister may withhold payments, in whole or in part, from the Wine Research Trust Fund. Cattle and Beef Research Trust Account. - This Trust Account was recently established under the Cattle and Beef Research Act 1960. The industry finance will be raised by a Statutory levy on all cattle over 200 lb. dressed weight, or 220 lb. in the case of a carcass with the skin on slaughtered in the Commonwealth for human consumption. In addition the trust account will receive a matching Commonwealth contribution on the basis of £1 for £1 with the beef industry in respect of expenditure from the Trust Account The maximum rate of levy will be 2s. per beast but the actual rate of levy which will operate from 1st July, 1960, has not been decided. In a normal year a levy of 2s. per head would provide an industry contribution of about £320,000 for research. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Wool Research Committee. - The Wool Research Committee consists of nine members and a representative of the Australian Agricultural Council as an observer. The membership is as follows: - The Chairman of the Australian Wool Bureau. Two representatives of the Australian Wool Growers Council. Two representatives of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. One representative of the universities. One representative of C.S.I.R.O. One representative of the Australian Woollen and Worsted Textile Manufacturers Association. One representative of the Department of Primary Industry (chairman). (Since the Wool Research Act 1957 was passed, under which the Wool Research Committee was established, a representative of the Australian Agricultural Council has been added to the Committee in the capacity of an observer.) Wheat Industry Research Council. - The following ten members comprise the Wheat Industry Research Council: - Two representatives of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. One representative of the State Department of Agriculture in each of the mainland States. One representative of the universities. One representative of C.S.I.R.O. One representative of the Department of Primary Industry (chairman). (A State Wheat Industry Advisory Committee has also been set up in each mainland State to administer the funds realized by levy on deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board in each State.) Central Tobacco Advisory Committee. - The Central Tobacco Advisory Committee consists of sixteen members including - Four representatives of the Tobacco Growers Associations. Four representatives of tobacco manufacturers. One representative of the Department of Agriculture of each State in which tobacco is grown (New South Wales, Queensland. Victoria and Western Australia). One representative of C.S.I.R.O. One representative of Department of Customs and Excise. Two representatives of the Department of Primary Industry (including chairmanship). Dairy Produce Research Committee. - The following nine members comprise the Dairy Produce Research Committee: - The Chairman of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. One person who is a member of the board representing either co-operative butter and cheese factories, or proprietary butter and cheese factories and privately owned butter and cheese factories. Three persons who represent the dairyfarmers of Australia on the Board. One member of the Board appointed for the purpose of administering the Research and Sales Promotion programme. One representative of the Australian Agricultural Council. One representative of the Department of Primary Industry, One representative of C.S.I.R.O. Australian Wine Research Institute Council. - The Wine Research Institute has appointed nine persons to its Council - Three representatives of the Australian Wine Board. One representative of the University of South Australia. One representative of C.S.I.R.O. One representative of the Department of Primary Industry, Three persons selected by the above " being persons having knowledge of the scientific aspects of the functions of the Institute". Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. - The act provides for the Beef Research Committee to comprise the following twelve persons: - The chairman of the Australian Meat Board. Four representatives of the Graziers Federal Council of Australia. Two representatives of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. One representative of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. One representative of the Australian Agricultural Council. One representative of C.S.I.R.O. One representative of such universities as engage in research affecting the beef industry. One representative of the Department of Primary Industry, {: type="1" start="6"} 0. The funds are used to further research by financing approved programmes through the trust funds and/or accounts set up for the primary industries mentioned in 1 above. Projects already in progress or authorized to commence, receive money for the purchase of equipment, salaries of research personnel, buildings where necessary, travelling expenses and other incidentals. The C.S.I.R.O., the universities, and other State or Commonwealth technological institutions are thus enabled to proceed with controlled research programmes. If further detailed information is required by the honorable member, I refer him to the annual reports which are published as required by the act under which the particular trust fund or trust account has been established. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Imports {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. value and percentage of imports by (i) the largest importer, (ii) the two largest importers and (iii) the three largest importers of each of the following commodities in 1958-59: - Tobacco; copra; raw cotton; corn and flour; rayon yarns; cotton; petroleum; aluminium; tinned plate and sheet; copper; iron and steel; aircraft and parts; tools of trade; motor vehicles; dynamo and electrical machinery; agricultural and other similar machinery; diesel engines; office and accounting machines; rubber; undressed timber; newsprint; drugs; fertilizers; plastic materials? {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable member's question: - (a)- {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i), (ii) and (iii) This information is not available. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Protection of Australian Industries {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - >On how many occasions and in what circumstances has the Commonwealth invoked the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act in respect of (a) repression of monopolies and (b) prevention of dumping? {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable member's question: - >The Australian Industries Preservation Act has only been invoked on one occasion in connexion with the repression of monopolies. This was in 1911 and concerned an action instituted by the Commonwealth against certain coal mine and interstate shipping companies who, it was alleged, entered into an express contract in relation to interstate trade and commerce with intent to restrain that trade and commerce to the detriment of the public. With regard to the implementation of this statute in relation to the prevention of dumping it has not been used since 1921 when the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act 1921 was assented to. Before 1921 there is no record of its actual implementation to prevent dumping but it is known that difficulty was experienced during that period in ascertaining satisfactory evidence of the " intent " factor as provided for in section 19 (1) of the act. However, action has been taken on many occasions to invoke the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act to deal with cases concerning dumping of imported goods. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr Costa:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES a asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Do entertainers from the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada who perform in Australia receive the benefits of the reciprocal taxation agreements on their earnings in Australia? 1. Are the rates of taxation imposed in Australia on earnings by overseas entertainers any different from those imposed on earnings from personal exertion? {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1, Visiting entertainers are not entitled, under the taxation agreements with the United Kingdom, Canada or New Zealand, to exemption from Australian tax on remuneration or other income paid to them for performances in this country. Visiting entertainers from the United States of America may qualify for exemption of their earnings under a provision of the agreement relating to visitors to Australia, if the tests prescribed in the agreement are satisfied. These tests are - (a) the earnings shall be in respect of services rendered for or on behalf of a United States resident; and (b) the entertainer is not present in Australia for more than 183 days during the income year in which the services are rendered. If these tests are not satisfied, Australian tax is payable on the earnings of the entertainer. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Banking {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the regulations or understandings which affect lending by trading banks? 1. Were loans by the trading banks to the authorized dealers in the short-term money market made in accordance with those regulations or understandings? {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The following are the answers to the honorable member's questions: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. So far as action by the Reserve Bank is concerned the lending policies which the trading banks were asked to follow over 1959-60 were stated by the Governor of the Reserve Bank (then the Commonwealth Bank) on 1st December, 1959, in the following terms: - The banks were asked to see that their lending policies were consistent with not more than a moderate expansion of bank credit over 1959-60. The allocation of advances continued to be determined by the banks themselves in accordance with accepted banking principles. However, banks were asked to continue to refrain from granting advances for the extension of hire purchase and instalment selling and to avoid giving any stimulus to speculative tendencies. It was assumed that banks would, as usual, give special consideration to any areas adversely affected by seasonal conditions. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As will be seen there is nothing in the above statement to preclude loans by the trading banks to authorized dealers in the short-term money market. Australian Investments in South Africa. {: #subdebate-37-6-s2 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amounts of capital have been invested in South Africa by Australian investors during each of the past five years? 1. What are the main types of industry or activity in which this investment has taken place? 2. What amounts of capital have been invested in Australia by South African investors during each of the past five years? {: #subdebate-37-6-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 3. While complete and precise figures are not available it is estimated that the flow of direct private investment in companies in each direction between Australia and the Union of South Africa has amounted to appreciably less than £1,000,000 in each of the years 1955-56 to 1958-59. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No classification by industry of Australian investment overseas is available. Overseas Investments in Australia. {: #subdebate-37-6-s4 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total amount of capital from (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, and (c) other overseas countries invested in Australia in 1950-51, and what amount was invested in Australia from each of these sources in each succeeding year? 1. What was the profit made on investments from each of these sources in each year from and including 1950-51? {: #subdebate-37-6-s5 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Details of the annual inflow of private oversea investment in companies in Australia from the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada and all other countries are given below for the years 1950-51 to 1957-58. This information is taken from the Annual Bulletin of Oversea Investment, 1957-58, which is published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. In order to comply with the secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act, the figures for the United States of America and Canada are shown only in combination. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The table below sets out the investment income payable to the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada, and all other countries, out of profits earned by companies operating in Australia, for the years 1950-51 to 1957-58. These figures include profits remitted or credited, as well as undistributed profits which have accrued to oversea parent companies or head offices. The figures shown include profits on investments in Australia prior to 1950-51. {:#subdebate-37-7} #### Assistance in National Disasters {: #subdebate-37-7-s0 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie:
WILMOT, TASMANIA e asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How much has the Commonwealth contributed since 1950 in direct grants to States in times of disaster caused by flood, fire, drought, cyclone, hail damage, &c? 1. What was the (a) occasion and (b) amount contributed in each instance? 2. How much has the Commonwealth contributed since 1950 on a £1 for £1 basis or on any other basis? 3. What was the (a) occasion and (b) amount contributed in each instance? 4. Does the Government intend to set up a national disaster fund? {: #subdebate-37-7-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The following table sets out the amounts contributed by the Commonwealth since 1950-51 as specific grants to assist State Governments to meet expenditures arising from natural disasters. In each case the Commonwealth contribution was provided on a £1 for £1 basis with the State Government concerned. When the establishment of a " National Disaster Fund " was discussed at a Premiers' Conference in March, 1959, the general feeling of the Premiers was found to be against such a step. {:#subdebate-37-8} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-37-8-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is interest on debentures, unsecured notes, deposits, &c. deducted by companies before deriving their taxable income? 1. Do any countries treat interest on these securities as an amount to be paid by the company out of income after tax? 2. If so, what are the major countries which adopt this practice? 3. What would be the estimated increased tax revenue in Australia if interest paid by companies on these securities was treated as an amount to be paid after company taxation was levied? {: #subdebate-37-8-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Section 51 of the Income Tax Assessment Act requires expenses, including interest on debentures, unsecured notes, deposits, &c, to be allowed as deductions in arriving at the taxable income of a company or other taxpayer to the extent that the expenses are not of a capital, private, or domestic nature and are incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing such income. Interest deductible by the payer is, of course, included in the taxable income of the recipient. 2 and 3. Information available does not indicate that the income tax systems of other countries differ in this respect from the principles underlying the Australian income tax law. In the United Kingdom, for instance, tax on interest is generally collected by flat-rate deductions made by companies and other persons paying interest. Where this happens the interest is not then deductible from the income of the payer but he retains for his own purposes, without having to include it in taxable income, the amount of tax that he has deducted from the interest. The practical effect is the same as that achieved under the Australian procedures. 1. It is estimated that additional revenue of £8,000,000 a year would be collected if interest on debentures and like securities at present incurred in earning assessable income were not an allowable deduction. It should be specifically borne in mind that this estimate is confined to interest on the types of borrowing mentioned in the question, i.e., debentures, unsecured notes, deposits and the like. It does not measure the effect on revenue of denying deduction for interest on other forms of borrowing, for example, from the banks or other financial institutions. Coronary Occlusions in Ex-Servicemen. {: #subdebate-37-8-s2 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are statistics kept by the Repatriation Department of the number of ex-servicemen who have died from coronary occlusion? 1. If so, what is the - (a) total number of exservicemen; (b) number of ex-servicemen of World War II.; and (c) number of ex-servicemen since 1945 under the age of 35 years who have died from this cause? {: #subdebate-37-8-s3 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- In reply I wish to furnish the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes, but the statistics are incomplete in the following respects. The records of the department cover only those ex-servicemen who have had an incapacity accepted as due to war service, and those whose dependants have claimed death as due to war service. Further, the cause of death of 1914 War ex-servicemen has only been recorded since January, 1959. 1. Answers to this question are - (a) for reasons explained in 1, the total number of ex-servicemen who have died from coronary occlusion is not known; (b) there have been 1,714 recorded deaths of World War II. ex-servicemen; (c) this information is not available. 2. I might add that from 15th January, 1959, there have been 771 recorded deaths from coronary occlusion of ex-servicemen from World War I. {:#subdebate-37-9} #### Rain Making {: #subdebate-37-9-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND z asked the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In selecting areas for rain-making experiments does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization seek advice from State Departments of Agriculture? 1. Are safeguards available to halt experiments at short notice if conditions, such as harvest periods, require this? {: #subdebate-37-9-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In selecting suitable areas for rain-making experiments it is necessary first to seek those in which clouds of the right kind appear with sufficient frequency. Having defined areas which are suitable from this point of view, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization then consults with the appropriate Department of Agriculture and obtains its advice as to which particular area would be most suitable. 1. While there is no evidence that cloud seeding with silver iodide tends to produce extremely heavy rain, in all rain-making experiments the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has asked the appropriate State Department of Agriculture to nominate one of its officers to act as referee during the currency of the experiments. The function of this referee is to look after the interests of primary producers in the area and he has the right to suspend operations at any time if in his opinion the area has already had enough rain. {:#subdebate-37-10} #### Pensioner Medical Service {: #subdebate-37-10-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA s asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many pensioner wives are eligible for the benefits of the free pensioner medical service? 1. What is the annual cost of this service? {: #subdebate-37-10-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The Minister for Social Services has referred this question to me for attention, and I furnish the following answer: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. This information is not available. 1. The cost of medical services rendered to all pensioners and their dependants enrolled in the pensioner medical service during the financial year 1958-59 was £3,806,457. {:#subdebate-37-11} #### Civil Aviation {: #subdebate-37-11-s0 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES s asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was approval for the departure of a chartered civil aircraft from Williamtown Air Base on Friday night, 22nd April, refused by the Royal Australian Air Force Officer-in-charge after consultation with the Department of Civil Aviation? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If so, what was the reason for that decision? {: #subdebate-37-11-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers: - 1 and 2. Inquiry into this matter has revealed that approval to use Williamtown for this charter flight was refused for the reason that the departure time for this flight (11 p.m.) on Friday, 22nd April, and the return on Tuesday, 26th April (3 a.m.), which was also included in the request, were well outside the normal operating hours for the aerodrome. The R.A.A.F. has been most cooperative in making provision for the regular use of Williamtown by airline operators but it is unable to accommodate charter or private operations particularly when such operations fall outside the normal operating hours for the aerodrome. I am sure you will agree that it is essential that nothing is done which would effect the regular service provided for the residents of Newcastle through the use of the R.A.A.F. aerodrome at Williamtown. Accordingly my department has now issued instructions that except for medical or other urgent matters civil operations into Williamtown be restricted to regular airline operations.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 May 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1960/19600519_reps_23_hor27/>.