House of Representatives
3 May 1932

13th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 13th Parliament
  3. 1932

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. H. Mackay) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 177

LYONS MINISTRY

Rumoured Dissension

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime

Minister read the startling statement published in the Labor Daily, that rebellion has occurred in the Commonwealth Cabinet?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– That statement, like most others published in the Labor Daily, is absolutely untrue.

page 177

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

-Will the Prime

Minister seriously consider the postponement of the Broadcasting Bill and other proposed legislation, in. order to permit the more urgent matter of unemployment to be debated?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have already given an undertaking that as soon as the necessary bill to give effect to the Government’s proposal for the raising of money for unemployment relief is ready it will take precedence of all other business. Following its introduction, the debate will be adjourned for a day to allow honorable members to consider the matter, and then will be completed without further delay.

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Government yet decided on the personnel of the unemployment council to be appointed in New South Wales; if not, will the decision be expedited in order that the variouslocal governingbodies may apply for a share of the money to be expended on relief work?

Mr LYONS:

– The personnel of the council has not been determined. Meanwhile local governingbodies may apply direct to the Treasury,by which the applications will he referred to the council when appointed.

page 177

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Leased Premises at Canberra.

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether the Government has yet reached a decision regarding the proposed evacuation of certain private premises at Civic Centre now leased by the Government for the use of Commonwealth departments ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for the Interior · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The matter is still under consideration.

page 177

QUESTION

HAIR CLOTH

Mr McNICOLL:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the clanger that (he hair cloth industry may be stopped, thus increasing unemployment, and having regard to the alteration of conditions since the Tariff Board submitted its report, will the Government favorably reconsider the duties on this commodity ?

Mr GULLETT:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

– The matter is now receiving my attention.

page 177

QUESTION

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs furnish, the House with any information regarding the progress of the Disarmament Conference at Geneva ?

Mr BRUCE:
Assistant Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– by leave - Considerable apprehension must have been caused by the statement published in the newspapers on Friday last that the Disarmament Conference had broken down. As that is not. the case, it is desirable that 1 should make a statement regarding the progress of the conference to-date. The proceedings began on the 2nd February, and in the general commission a draft submitted by the preparatory commission was adopted as the basis of discussion. On the 8th March the conference adjourned over the Easter, resuming on the 11th April. Several definite proposals have been submitted. The representative of the Russian Soviet Government proposed complete and immediate disarmament, but that was regarded as impracticable. The United States of America proposed the disuse of certain offensive weapons, including tanks, heavy mobile guns, and poison gas, and was supported by the representatives of the United Kingdom and of Italy. The Italian delegation submitted a further proposal for the progressive annual reduction, with a view to their ultimate abolition, of certain kinds of offensive weapons, including bombing planes, battleships, aircraft carriers and submarines, and a percentage of heavy artillery. The conference resolved that the possession or use of certain arms should be prohibited or internationally controlled, and special committees have been appointed to report as to which weapons are “ most specifically offensive ,;. Pending the completion of this examination the conference has adjourned, and the delegates have returned to their own colin tries, but that docs not imply the failure of the conference. In many respects the specific proposal now being investigated is as practicable as any which has ever been submitted to the conference.

A good deal of apprehension has been caused by the report of the speech made at Geneva by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), who is the Australian delegate to the conference. Before speaking about battleships, the honorable member announced, without reservation, Australia’s support of the general idea of the progressive and immediate reduction of armaments, but having dealt with the broad and general question, he directed his attention to the specific proposals that are now occupying the consideration of the conference, relating to the armaments that are “ of most specifically offensive “ character. It was in that connexion that he touched upon the subject of battleships. His first argument was that battleships were not peculiarly of that type, but should he placed fairly low down in the list of armaments which it is imperative and desirable to abolish. He put the whole case as he saw it from that angle; yet, at the same time, he stated that Australia wholly subscribed to the view that the number and size of battleships should be progressively reduced. I make this explanation in fairness to the AttorneyGeneral - the report of whose speech has clearly been the subject of a good deal of misunderstanding.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- by leave - When the Attorney-General left

Australia to represent the Commonwealth at the Disarmament Conference, he took, with him the good wishes and the goodwill of the whole of the members of this Parliament, and it will be well for Australia if we can maintain that attitude throughout the memorable conference? which is now sitting at Geneva. Therefore I welcome the statement of the Assistant Minister (Mr. Bruce). It certainly is news to those of us who have read the cabled report of the AttorneyGeneral’sspeech. I suggest to the Government that it should endeavour to obtain the full text of the speech, and publish it throughout Australia for the benefit of the public, because there is not the slightest doubt that the cabled message which we received, and which was published in most of the principal newspapers, conveyed the impression that his only statement on behalf of Australia was a plea for the retention of capital ships, and nothing else-. If that were so, Australia would have been misrepresented. Of course I accept the explanation of the Assistant Treasurer: but when I read the cabled report, which was fairly lengthy, I felt that it did not truly represent Australian opinion. I admit that a plea on the ground of the needs of defence can be put forward for the retention of armaments of all kinds, for use whether on land or on sea. It can even be claimed that poison gas is needed for defence; that anything is so needed. But the plea for defence is really a plea for preparation for war, and preparation for war, as I have contended before, leads to war. I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General did put forward a plea for substantial and progressive disarmament, and I think that the Australian public should have the full text of his speech in correction of the condensed statement which misrepresented Australia’s attitude.

page 178

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Simplification - Rulings

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister yet investigated the possibility of modifying the present irksome and costly system of sales tax collection by making the tax payable in lump sums on imports and, by manufacturers ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– That matter is under the close consideration of the Assistant Treasurer, and of the Taxation Department, at the present time.

Mr NAIRN:

– Will the Prime Minister and the officers of the Taxation Department, in considering the incidence of the sales tax, consider the substitution of a single turn-over tax for the existing sales tax?

Mr LYONS:

– At the present time that and every other aspect of the incidence of the sales tax is under consideration. Prior to the introduction of the budget, this Parliament will be notified of the decision of the Government.

Mr Thompson:

– Will honorable members have an opportunity of discussing this matter?

Mr LYONS:

– Yes ; on the budget-

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Will the Assistant Treasurer give consideration to the compilation of the 600 odd sales tax rulings of the department, to make them available to traders, so that these persons will not have to look up old newspaper files for the information they require ?

Mr BRUCE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I shall discuss the matter with the Taxation Commissioner, to see whether it is possible to agree to the honorable member’s request.

page 179

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT

Cheques

Mr MAXWELL:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether there is any foundation for the statement in to-day’s issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph to the effect that money lenders are buying for 15s. in the £1, cheques signed by the Government of New South Wales and marked “Refer to drawer “?.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have no knowledge of the matter, but I shall make inquiries on behalf of the honorable member.

page 179

QUESTION

TAXATION ON IMPORTS

Mr GREGORY:

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been, drawn to a statement of the President of the Retail Traders Association of New South Wales, published in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald, in which he particularises the cost of sales tax, primage duty and exchange. He says -

Therefore sales tax, primage, bank exchange, and conversion rates aggregate 75 per cent, move for oversea goods.

When Cabinet agreed to further increases in the tariff, was the high cost of exchange, primage duty, and sales tax taken into consideration by it?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Few increases of duty have been proposed by this Government. One of our reasons for modifying the tariff was the existence of the special protection provided by the primage duty, exchange, and other factors to which the honorable member has referred.

page 179

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO

Mr THOMPSON:

– Is the agreement which the Minister for Trade and Customs came to with the tobacco manufacturers regarding the present season’s tobacco crop, verbal or in writing, and if in writing, will he make it available to the House? Is he prepared to make a statement to the House as to how that agreement was arrived at?

Mr GULLETT:
UAP

– The subject of the new tobacco duties will be before the House at an early date, and when it is under discussion I propose to deal fully with the matter.

Mr Thompson:

– Is the agreement verbal ?

Mr GULLETT:

– No; written.

page 179

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICE

Night Rates

Mr McBRIDE:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that many country telephone exchanges close before 9 p.m., and adjacent subscribers cannot receive the benefit of the low night rates, will the Postmaster-General give consideration to the suggestion for applying the night rate to exchanges which are open between 7 and 8 p.m.?

Mr FENTON:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– I shall have inquiries made to ascertain whether it is possible to put into effect the honorable member’s suggestion.

page 179

QUESTION

TAXATION CONSOLIDATION

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Assistant Treasurer consider the possible consolidation of the various income tax enactments now in force, with a view to simplifying the payment and collection of taxes, in order to relieve the public of much of the inconvenience to which they are now subjected?

Mr BRUCE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– In 1922, when Treasurer, I essayed the task of consolidating the income tax legislation which had then been passed, to simplify the whole system of taxation. We consulted with the representatives of every section of taxpayers, and each section put forward its own suggestions; but these were largely in conflict. We found the interests of taxpayers so divergent that, although in principle all favour simplification, taxpayers were not prepared to surrender the present somewhat complicated, though generally equitable, system if they were likely . to lose anything thereby.

page 180

QUESTION

WHEAT BOUNTY

Mr THOMPSON:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Commerce been drawn to a newspaper statement that the claims for wheat bounty have greatly exceeded the departmental estimate, and that insufficient funds are available to meet the claims?

Mr HAWKER:
Minister for Commerce · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The quantity of wheat harvested in Australia has exceeded the estimate of the crop made last year, but the actual number of claims received is considerably less than was anticipated. This is due to the fact that a great many farmers have refrained from sending in their claims until all their wheat has been harvested and despatched, and can be all’ covered by one claim. It is not thought that any fraudulent claims have been presented, nor that the funds available will not be sufficient to meet all just claims.

page 180

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INTEREST PAYMENTS

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What was the total amount paid in interest on external loans for the year ended 30th June last?
  2. What is the total amount due and paid in interest on external loans to the 30th June, 1932 ?
Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s Questions are as

  1. It is regretted that this information can not be secured without incurring undue expense.

page 180

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Wages - Subsidies to Aircraft Company - Earnings - Losses

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Willhe obtain the following information for the information of the House: -

The amount expended in wages for employees of the Commonwealth railways, for the years ended 30th June, 1930 and 1931, and’ if possible the same information for the nine months of the current financial year ended’ 31st March, 1932?

The amount of money deducted from the wages or salaries of Commonwealth railway employees in respect of the Financial Emergency Acts since those acts became operative!1 3. (a) The amount of subsidy (per annum) granted by the Commonwealth Government to the Airways Company which operates a passenger and mail service between Adelaide and Perth; (b) the date when the subsidy commenced; (c) the date when the present contract will expire?

The amounts returned to the Consolidated Revenue of the Commonwealth for each of the financial years ended 30th June, 1929-, 1930, and 1931., by the Commonwealth Railways Department?

The amounts of any losses for each of the financialyears ended 30th June, 1929,. 1930, and 193 1?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

page 180

PUBLIC SERVICE

Five-Day Week

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Prime

Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House as to the savings made in the various departments as a. result of the introduction therein of the fiveday week ?
  2. Does the Government intend to introduce the five-day week into those departments -where it is not operating at present?
Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The whole position in regard to the five-day working week in the Commonwealth Service is being examined, and a statement in regard thereto will be made at an early date.

page 181

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA

Jurisdiction

Mr.R. GREEN asked the Prime Min ister, upon notice -

  1. Are district courts in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea limited as to jurisdiction; if so, to what extent?
  2. Seeing that all the presiding officers of district courts have admittedly no legal qualifications, what legal training, if any, have any of those persons had?
  3. Why is there at present no legally qualified stipendiary or police magistrate in the territory?
Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes. Division 2 of Part III. of the District Courts Ordinance 1924-1927 ordains the limits within which district courts in New Guinea have jurisdiction.
  2. None so far as I am aware, other than the experience acquired in the discharge of their duties as constituent members of courts for native affairs and of district courts. In the selection of officers for appointment as district officer, regard is had to their suitability for the exercise of quasi-judicial functions as well as for the discharge of the administrative duties of the office.
  3. It is not considered that existing circumstances warrant the filling of the position of stipendiary magistrate which became vacant on the death, in June, 1031, of Lieu tenantColonel S. J. Shillington.

page 181

QUESTION

AMERICAN SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS

Mr HOLMAN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that under the present American shipping law vessels of British registration carrying cither passengers or freight are not permitted to berth at two ports within the United States of America in the course of a single voyage?
  2. Is it a fact that under sections of this law Australian vessels touching at Honolulu, for example, are not permitted to carry passengers or freight from there to San Francisco?
  3. Is it a fact, on the other hand, that vessels of American registration trade between New Zealand and Australia without limitation?
  4. Will he consider the feasibility of altering the state of tilings by regulation, and, if that is not possible, of seeking larger powers from Parliament?
Mr HAWKER:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. So far as can be ascertained, there is no restriction as to the number of ports of call of any vessel engaged in the foreign-going trade with the United States of America. Definite information on the point is, however, being sought, and when received will be made available to the honorable member.
  2. Yes. The trade between Honolulu and the United States of America is regarded as part of the coasting trade of that country.
  3. Yes.
  4. No Australian-registered vessel trades to the United States of America. The two British vessels running between Sydney and San Francisco, via New Zealand, and owned by the Union Steamship Company, with head-quarters in the dominion, are registered in London. The matter of protecting the trade of these vessels is therefore primarily one for the consideration of the British and New Zealand Governments. Communications on the subject have been exchanged with these governments and the matter is receiving consideration, but it is not possible at present to indicate what line of action, if any, it is proposed to adopt.

page 181

QUESTION

FISHING INDUSTRY

Purchase of Trawler

Mr HOLMAN:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the Sydney Sun of the 22nd April last, relating to a scheme to reestablish the fishing industry?
  2. Is it a fact, as there stated, that the main feature of the proposal is to purchase from England a trawler which is to cost

£ 25,000?

  1. Has he considered in this connexion the possibility of having trawlers built at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, Sydney?
  2. Will he, before determining on any definite course, obtain a report from his colleague, the Assistant Minister for Defence, as to the feasibility of building the trawler spoken of at the dock?
Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes.
  2. An expert committee, comprising Sir George Julius as chairman and Professor W. J. Dakin, of the University of Sydney, and Mr. A. W. Wood, late Director of Fisheries of New South Wales, as members, recommended recently that every effort should be made by the Commonwealth Government, with the cooperation of private enterprise, to determine the fundamental data that is now lacking in connexion with fisheries ; also that, with a view to formulating a definite policy, the Development Branch of the Prime Minister’s Department and the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research be asked to submit a joint report. Both these bodies have been asked to submit a report. The report of the expert committee did not contain any recommendation involving the purchase of a trawler, and, at present, there is no such proposal before the Government. 3 and 4. See reply to 2.

page 182

QUESTION

SALE OF “ ON SERVICE “ STAMPS

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount of revenue received from the sale to the general public of “ On Service” stamps over the counter?
  2. in view of his promise to go fully into the whole question of selling “ On Service “ stamps to the public, what decision has been arrived at?
Mr FENTON:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. The sixpenny brown air mail stamp is the only one sold to the general public, and the sales were approximately £1,300 for the first three months.
  2. The matter is being examined, but a decision has not yet been reached.

page 182

QUESTION

AIR-COMMODORE KINGSFORD SMITH

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– On the 29th April, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Have any representations been made to the Government asking that the valuable services of Air-Commodore Charles Kingsford Smith bo retained in the Commonwealth?
  2. It so, what reply has been given by the Government to such representations?
  3. If the reply is adverse will the Government give further consideration to the matter, so that this very gallant airman may continue to assist Australia in aviation matters?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member as follows : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Those who have made such representations have been informed that there is no departmental vacancy to which Air-Commodore Kingsford Smith could be appointed, nor are funds available which could be utilized to provide for a suitable appointment.
  3. The Government is not unmindful of the valuable services to Australian aviation rendered by Air-Commodore Kingsford Smith, but is unable to indicate any immediate prospect of overcoming the difficulties which now preclude his employment in the service of the Government.

page 182

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Distribution of Surplus Military Stores

Mr FRANCIS:
UAP

– On the 29th April, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin), the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), and the honorable member for Hume (Mr.. Collins), referred to the matter of the distribution of surplus and unserviceable military clothing for the relief of those in distressed circumstances.

I replied at the time, setting out the position regarding this matter, and promised to have further inquiries made regarding the points raised by the honorable members. I have now ascertained that there are no surplus stocks of army clothing and equipment, beyond the large quantity already issued, available for distribution. In States other than New South Wales any part-worn and unserviceable clothing’ and equipment that becomes available ishanded over free to the State authorities for relief of unemployed. In New South Wales, where the State Government declined to handle the matter, issues are made direct to the following charitable organizations for distribution to unemployed : - The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Sydney City Mission, City Night Refuge and Soup Kitchen, and the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army has agreed to distribute to country centres portion of the clothing and equipment received, and in making allocations to the above organizations, the District Base Commandant, Sydney, is taking this fact into consideration. The only part-worn and unserviceable clothing, &c, available i? that returned to ordnance depots by troops, but the quantities are not large, and, it is regretted, are not sufficient to provide a distribution to all city and country centres.

page 182

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Financial Agreements Enforcement Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1932, Nos. 34, 40.

Lighthouses Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1932, No. 35.

page 183

FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS ENFORCEMENT BILL (No. 2)

Assent reported.

page 183

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from the 29th April, vide page 156) :

Clause 16 - 16.- - (1.) The commission shall undertake the provision and rendition of adequate and comprehensive programmes for broadcasting from the national broadcasting stations, and shall take all possible steps to exploit, in the interests of the community, the programme aspect of broadcasting. (2.) The hours during which programmes shall be broadcast from the various national broadcasting stations shall bc subject to the approval of the Minister:

Upon which Mr. Fenton had moved by way of amendment -

That sub-clause (2) be omitted.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I am surprised that the clause dealing with the powers and functions of the proposed broadcasting commission has been drawn in such a haphazard and incomplete way. I can only conclude that insufficient attention was given to the matter, not only by the advisors of the Government, but also by the Minister himself, having regard to the importance of the provision, and the necessity of having this clause made as watertight as possible. However much we may disagree regarding the salaries which ought to be paid to the commissioners, and the method in which they and the general manager should be appointed, there can surely be no difference of opinion upon the necessity of having the powers and functions of the commission as clearly defined as it is possible to make them. Therefore, I believe that the Minister would be wise, before rushing this clause through, to pay particular attention to the remarks and suggestions of honorable members, and then to reconsider the clause to see whether it is not possible to effect improvements in it.

In one respect, at least, the Government appears to have placed itself in an untenable position. There is no reference in clause 16 to the control or supervision of B class stations, and that appears to mc to be a vital defect in the bill. I propose at a suitable time to move an amendment to include among the functions of the commission a genera) control over B class stations in the interests of broadcasting generally. Clause Ki is, I believe, the proper place in which to insert a provision to that effect. Clause 16 confers the key powers of the commission, and a provision should be included to enable the commission to control B class stations. 1 understand that the Minister proposes to delete sub-clause 2, which givos power to regulate the hours during which programmes shall be broadcast through A class stations. If that is the best the Minister has been able to do to improve the bill, I suggest that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. After all, the important question is not whether the Minister shall have power to determine the hours of broadcasting, but what is to be the nature of his general powers over the commission. I much doubt whether any Minister could exercise supervision over such a body. No harm will be done whether sub-clause 2 is retained or struck out; but I ask the Minister whether, in place of that sub-clause, he is prepared to insert a new sub-clause giving the commission a general power over B class stations. It would be rather difficult to confer that power in the first part of the clause, without having the whole provision redrafted; but it would be a simple matter to give it in a new sub-clause. It is recognized in most countries that B class stations form a vital part of their broadcasting system, and they have become more important to the general public than the A class stations. It has been said in this chamber, and in the press, that B class stations provide the greater part of the entertainment which the people of Australia receive over the air. One reason is that there are about 40 B class and. only about twelve A class stations. In Sydney, for instance, there are only two A class stations, but there are five or six of the B class. As a matter of fact, the multiplicity of B class stations in the capital cities to-day is proving a serious obstacle to the popularity of broadcasting, because it has now become difficult to regulate the various wave lengths to prevent their overlapping. The wave lengths of several

B class stations already conflict with those of A class stations. It was announced recently that the great race of Phar Lap at Agua Caliente would be broadcast through a B class station ; but the transmission was a total failure, and so far as Sydney was concerned, that seemed to be due to the fact that several B class stations were crowding out the station that was broadcasting a description of the race, and the public heard practically nothing of it. I do not suppose that the broadcast was deliberately interfered with; but it would be possible for competing stations to spoil an enterprise undertaken by another B class station for the sake of a big advertisement.

The tendency among B class stations is to put an increasing number of advertising programmes over the air, because they depend on advertisements for their revenue. I suggest, however, that, it is Mot conducive to the best interests, of broadcasting to permit B class stations to jamb the air with advertisements. In my opinion, A class stations should not be allowed to submit sponsored programmes. The B class stations give one or two gramophone records, and with them are half a dozen advertising announcements. This disparity will need some correction sooner or later. Those who pay 24s. a year for a listening-in licence do so because, in addition to the A class programmes, they have the choice of a large number of B class programmes. I consider that the B class stations should receive a portion of the revenue derived from listening-in licences, to enable them to be less dependent than they now are on revenue derived from advertisements. This may not be practicable at the present time; but we should regulate the number and class of advertisements now being put over the air.

Mr Hughes:

– The Minister has some control already; he can refuse .to grant licences to broadcast.

Mr THOMPSON:

– That is the only control which he has.

Mr Stewart:

– But that is a fairly effective control.

Mr THOMPSON:

– It is of little value, because anybody with the necessary financial backing to establish a B class station can obtain a licence.

Mr Stewart:

– No.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The honorable member established a B class station recently, and he had no trouble in getting the necessary licence. B class stations are in operation or there is a move to establish them to-day in almost every country town.

Mr Maxwell:

– What sort of control does the honorable member suggest should be exercised?

Mr THOMPSON:

– We should make the commission the supreme authority, and we should insert a clause giving it genera] control and supervision over B class stations, this authority to be exercised in whatever manner it consider? fit in the interest of national broadcasting.

Mr McBride:

– The commission could put the B class stations out of business if it so desired.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member suggests that, as the Minister has abandoned control under this bill over A class stations, he should now take control over the B class stations; but that seems inconsistent.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The right honorable gentleman is putting words into my mouth that I did not use. I did noi say that the Minister had abandoned control of the A class stations. If the right honorable gentleman examines the bill he will see that the Minister is retaining a considerable measure of control, a good deal of which is necessary.

Mr Hughes:

– He will have no power of control.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Oh yes he will, subject to the commission. We have merely removed certain words from the bill which might have conveyed the impression that the Government was endeavouring to establish political control of wireless. There are 40 B class stations in Australia at present, and as the number of listeners increases so, inevitably, the number of B class stations will increase. The establishment of a number of these stations has been unfortunate to those who put money into them. But there is not the slightest doubt that until more relay stations are established the B class stations will continue to be an important factor in broadcasting in Australia, for if people cannot tune into A class stations they will go to the next best, which are the B class stations. The Government should, therefore, have some measure of control over these stations.

Mr Fenton:

– It has control over them under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. If any provisions are put into this bill in respect of B class stations they may involve extensive amendments to the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Then let us face the fact.

Mr Fenton:

– The object of this bill is to deal solely with the national stations. The Government has extensive powers over the B class stations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– It can even cancel the licences of B class stations if it thinks it proper to do so.

Mr THOMPSON:

– It is all very well to make a statement of that kind, but the Government must be well aware that if it cancelled the licence of any important B class station it would be a case of “hell let loose.” Take, for instance, station 2KY, perhaps the most, used - or misused - B class station in Australia. The Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) was not allowed the use of the national broadcasting stations a little while ago. I think he should have been allowed to put his story over, whether it was true or false. I do not agree with the policy of preventing public men from using the national broadcasting stations. We have to remember that a government of another political colour may come into office. We may even have a government dominated by the members of the Beasley group, and they would doubtless remember the attitude adopted by this Government when Mr. Lang wanted to use the national broadcasting stations. In such circumstances, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), the right honorable member for North Sydney (M’.r. Hughes), and other leaders might be prevented from using the national stations.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

– I remind honorable members that in this bill we are dealing only with the national stations. The control of B class stations is exercised by the department under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, which was passed some years ago. Any provisions relative to B class stations would be foreign to this bill. If it is found later that the amendment of the Wireless Telegraphy Act is necessary, steps can be taken to amend it; but the Government is hopeful that with the additional facilities that will be afforded for broadcasting through the national network, many of the defects of which complaint has been made in this debate will be removed. That remark relates particularly to country areas. It is the earnest wish of the Government, and of myself, to proceed at the earliest possible moment with the erection of eight additional stations. When these are in operation, 95 per cent, of the people of Australia will be supplied with excellent broadcasting facilities.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I regret that the Postmaster-General (Mr. Fenton) has changed his mind in regard to the provisions now under discussion. Originally, the bill provided that the Minister should control the hours of wire.less service. The British Government has control of that important matter. The Government should determine the hours during which wireless broadcasting shall be permitted over the national network; because it will have to meet the running costs. It is conceivable, though I do not say that it is probable, that the new broadcasting commission may extend the hours of service. I believe that even now our A class stations are on the air longer than the stations controlled by the British Broadcasting Corporation. No one is better able than the Minister and hi? advisers to determine the period during which broadcasting shall be permitted, and the DOWer to do so should be left in their hands, as originally proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Subject to tl,is act, the commission may do such acts and things as it deems incidental oi conducive to the proper exploitation of those things which may be beneficial to broadcast programmes, hut shall not engage in any subsidiary business which, in the opinion of the

Minister, is not desirable or necessary for the purpose for which the commission, was established.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

[3.49 . - I move -

That the words “ broadcast programmes “ bc omitted with n view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ broadcasting.”

The term “ broadcasting “ is used generally throughout the bill, and it is desirable that it shall be substituted in this clause for the words “ broadcast programmes.”

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I do not think that we should unduly restrict the powers of the commission, in regard to engaging in subsidiary business. I cannot find a suggestion in any clause of the bill that the adoption of this new method of control will result in the reduction of the fees of listeners, or the cheapening of the general facilities for wireless. I contend that the commission should be given powers similar to those, taken by the Sydney City Council in the conduct of its electricity sales department. The council discovered that it was the cost of appliances, and not the cost of power, that restrained people from using electricity. It established its own sales branch, and in addition to bringing about a greater use of electricity by cheapening the cost of appliances, it encouraged local manufacturers to produce goods that previously were imported.

Mr Hughes:

– I rise to a point of order. The Minister has moved that certain words ho. omitted and others substituted. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) is discussing the policy to be pursued under the clause generally. Could not that line of debate be better pursued when the suggested amendment of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) is being dealt with ?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– An honorable member may discuss either the amendment or the clause, therefore the honorable member for- Dalley is quite in order.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I am discussing the clause generally, because I object to the limitation that it places on the commission to engage in any subsidiary business. It is my belief that if the commission wore allowed to trade in wireless sets and accessories-,, it could do much to popularize wireless broadcasting; and induce additional listeners to take out licences. Many honorable members appear to be prejudiced against any form of governmental control, and desire to allow private enterprise full sway. It may interest them to know that although similar views are held by the present party in control of the Sydney City Council, that body has not* abolished the branch which allows their Electricity Department to compete with private trading concerns. The success of that department might well be repeated here. For that reason I urge that no restriction be placed on the activities of the commission to exploit every possible avenue to popularize broadcasting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I move -

That the following words be omitted: - “which, in the opinion of the Minister, is not desirable or necessary for the purpose for which the commission was established “.

I have not the slightest doubt that the present administration would not encourage the commission to engage in any of these subsidiary businesses, but we know perfectly well that such activities might receive the approval of another govern.ment.

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Would it not be within the power of any new government to alter the clause?

Mr GREGORY:

– We should be careful in defining these matters. I remember that, under the Customs Act, power was granted to place embargoes on goods coming into Australia : such things as indecent literature and pictures, drugs, and various other commodities that might be injurious to the people. The result may be seen from a paragraph which appears in this morning’s press, in connexion with galvanized iron.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr GREGORY:

– I desire to make it clear that it is unwise to word our legislation, loosely, or to give a semi-public concern authority to compete with private enterprise. I object to the use of public funds for the purpose of competing with the public. It is only necessary to examine the position pf our railways to see the evils of such a practice. Since 1914 they have made losses amounting to over £70,000,000, notwithstanding a 60 per cent, increase in rates. We should make it clear that we do not countenance the interference of government bodies with private enterprise.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The clause seems to contemplate that the commission will engage in business other than has been mentioned by the Minister. The word “ exploitation “ is used, whereas the British charter merely gives to the broadcasting corporation power - “ to do all such other things as the corporation may deem incidental or conducive to the attainment or exercise of any of the powers of the corporation.”

Mr Fenton:

– The word “ exploited “ is- used elsewhere in the charter.

Mr NAIRN:

– The word “exploitation “ must be considered in relation to the powers given to the commission by subsequent clauses to issue debentures up to the value of £50,000.

Mr Fenton:

– But definitely subject to the control of the Treasurer.

Mr NAIRN:

– A future Treasurer may be in favour of the commission engaging in the manufacture of broadcasting and other electrical material. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) spoke as if the commission may not engage in any subsidiary business without the permission of the Minister; but actually no permission is necessary. The effect of the clause is that the commission may engage in a subsidiary business unless the Minister specifically forbids it to do so. I shall be told that the commission may require to conduct experiments, but the words “ engage in business “ imply producing and selling for profit. There is no justification for giving the commission the right to operate in that way. It may be necessary for that body to engage in publicity connected with broadcasting, and, therefore, clause 18 allows it to publish newspapers, magazines, and other reading matter. But I object strongly to the commission having power to engage in any business other than that specified. Australia is suffering extensively through governmental ventures in trading at the instance of non-Labour, as well as of Labour Ministers. Two notable examples are Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited and the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. In each of these undertakings the Commonwealth holds 50 per cent, of the shares, and both are costing the country a great deal of money, without yielding any commensurate benefit to the people. It would be well if the Commonwealth could dissociate itself from them. Numerous State trading concerns have been even more disastrous. Honorable members supporting this Government have repeatedly inveighed against extensions of governmental operations, believing that governments should confine themselves to the legitimate function of governing, and not engage in ordinary trading. We should express that policy in our statutes, but we shall not be true to our principles if we allow the commission to engage in any subsidiary business which is not essential to the main purpose of providing an efficient broadcasting service. I support the amendment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– We have been told by ministerial supporters that the commissioners- must be men of ability, culture, integrity and independence, and that they must be allowed liberty of action. But tills amendment is a contradiction of that policy, for it definitely trenches on the freedom of the commissioners. I have always thought that a grant of unlimited power to any body acting for the Government would be dangerous; a reasonable subservience to Parliament through the Government of the day is desirable. But the restriction proposed by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) would beunwise. The commission is to control an important national service in the interests of the people, and in order to get the best results and extend broadcasting to the most distant settlements it should have authority to engage in enterprises which it believes will be helpful and profitable to the service. In the Defence factories, expert craftsmen and engineers are in charge of expensive and up-to-date plants. The production of munitions and other Defence requirements is not sufficient to keep the establishments in full operation, but rather than disperse some of the employees and allow the machinery to rust in idleness, the factories are permitted to engage in certain forms of production for profit; for instance, they manufacture shearing machine parts, and lip-stick cases. Thus the factories are in constant operation and ready for any emergency. To be consistent, those honorable members who believe that the broadcasting commission should not engage in any business enterprise must move for the amendment of clause IS, which allows the commission to print magazines, books, programmes, &c. Surely the unanimous desire of honorable members .s that this great national service shall be efficient. To keep the equipment up to date, and extend the benefits of broadcasting as far afield as practicable, the commission will need plenty of revenue; therefore, it should have reasonable liberty of. action, liberty even to invade to some extent what may be regarded as the realm of private enterprise. lt is necessary for the commission to have funds to enable it, not to make a profit, but to develop this service.

Mr Stewart:

– If this undertaking makes a profit it will be the only government enterprise that has ever done so.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Why are the honorable member and other supporters of the Government advocating this measure if they think that the undertaking is foredoomed to failure?

Mr Stewart:

– We are removing the possibility of failure. .

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member presupposes that this enterprise will fail. No national service in Australia has ever failed.

Mr Gregory:

– What about the railways and the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The railways were never intended to be profitable, and that is why private enterprise did not want them. The purpose of railways is to develop the country. Private enterprise wants only those undertakings which can be made successful. I believe that’ this national broadcasting service will be one of the finest institutions in Australia, but I am afraid that the possibility of its considerable extension may be curtailed by the smallness of the amount of revenue received by the commission. It is therefore only right and proper that some of the profitable side-lines of this business, of which private enterprise is so anxious to obtain a monopoly, should be left in the hands of the commission.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.-1 support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). I am totally opposed to government’ trading. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), in advocating the socialization of certain industries, is still chasing rainbows. He has said that Australia wants the best broadcasting service in the world. We are all agreed upon that. Various aspects of the service, such as programmes and their educational and cultural qualities, have been discussed,’ and we are now considering the question of trading by the commission. We should take a firm stand, and say that we do not believe in government trading, particularly in view of the follies of the past The Postal Department, which is an immense organization, and, according to the Auditor-General’s report, has an annual turnover of £143,000,000, show3 a loss of £67,000 despite the fact that it has no income tax, land tax, sales tax, or municipal rates to pay.

Mr Gabb:

– If the postal service were in the hands of private enterprise few farmers would be given an opportunity to have a telephone.

Mr WHITE:

– At the moment, the Postal Department cannot cope with the applications for telephones from country districts. Honorable members opposite believe in the glorification of officialdom ; they want the government official to run trading undertakings, instead of allowing private enterprise, which knows more about them, to control them. Government departments, which have no need to prepare a balance-sheet, or to show a profit at the end of the year, have a great advantage over business people outside. One honorable member opposite referred to the activity of the Munitions Department, which, he said, manufactured lipstick holders. That branch of the Defence Department has certain ordnance work to carry out in respect of gun and munition supplies. The Munitions Department at Maribyrnong has been making motor bodies in competition with private enterprise.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– And it is doing good work.

Mr WHITE:

– What . profit has it. shown ? It took work from motor-body builders outside who pay the taxes, which, in turn, provide the salaries of Ministers and members of Parliament. Yet honorable members opposite continue to advocate more and more socialistic enterprise and governmental business. An honorable member or citizen must be utterly devoid of intelligence who does not realize that all governmental ventures in Australia have been colossal failures. Now, it is proposed to perpetuate another such failure by giving the Minister power to say whether it is desirable or necessary that the National Broadcasting Commission should engage in trading. The Electricity Commission of Victoria, being an immense undertaking like the po3t office, was placed under governmental control. That commission, while it confined its activities to the supply of electric power to the taxpayers of Victoria, was a tremendous success. Under the able control of the late Sir John Monash, it supplied electric current at a satisfactory price to the public, and at a profit to the State. Unfortunately, the State act which ^established the commission was amended, or was vague as is this bill, and that body was allowed to engage in government trading. The commission has recently built an auxiliary building as a show-room, in which electrical instruments and appliances are ou sale to the public. As a result, certain traders are faced with not only the depression, but also the competition of the commission, whichhas not to bear taxes such as are placed upon private enterprise. If we are not heedless of the warnings of the pastwe should support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

. - I support the clause as it stands. I have a certain admiration for the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), and honorable members who support his amendment, because their attitude is consistent with the policy of their party, which is against the nationalization of any business or industry. They stand for private enterprise, while the members of the party to which I belong stand for the nationalization of industry. The clause as it stands places a certain restriction upon nationalization. I can quite understand the opposition of some of the supporters of the Government who have interests in B class stations. They are prepared to place every restriction upon the wireless users of this country, and if the commission fails, they will advocate an increase in the price of wireless licences.

Mr White:

– The licence-fee is too high now.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I agree with the honorable member.

Mr Stewart:

– The licence-fee will have to be higher to make up the loss on the subsidiary business.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I understand that the honorable member controls aB class station which is making a good profit. We have thrown on the shoulders of the people of this country all unprofitable enterprises. When the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Bruce) was Prime Minister he imported into this country a gentleman by the name of Mr. Brown, who was placed in charge of the post, office. Do honorable members opposite demand consistency to the extent of placing the control of the undertaking in the hands of private enterprise? Would the B class stations continue to operate if we took away from them or restricted their right to advertising! The honorable member for Swan is, I will admit, consistent, but I am sure that the Government, with the assistance of those honorable members on this side of the committee, who have faith in the nationalization of industry, will be able to defeat his amendment, and any other amendment designed to take away from Parliament the power to deal fairly by licence-holders.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I cannot support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). I agree in great measure with the statements of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), and of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) . I am one of those who, on general principles, do not support the entry of government into business, but that would not justify me in taking the stand that in no circumstances whatever shall a government enter into business affairs. There are circumstances in which it is not only desirable but necessary for governments to enter the business field. An instance of that may be had in the operations of the Commonwealth Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, which has undertaken the manufacture of combs and cutters. No private company was prepared to take on this work, and it was necessary that the Government should embark upon it in order to prevent the exploitation of the consuming public by firms which, in the past, undoubtedly exploited them. The honorable member for Swan must himself applaud the entry of government into business in that instance. At any rate, it has the support of the great bulk of primary producers throughout the Commonwealth, as is well known to the honorable member for Swan. The only reason why the broadcasting commission would desire to enter into trading or any subsidiary business in connexion with the wireless industry would be to prevent the exploitation of the public by those firms which might display a tendency to charge too much for their goods. If the Government did not insert in this bill some provision to protect the public, it would be extending an open invitation to the manufacturers of wireless sets and accessories to exploit the public in the future as, it is freely alleged, they have done in the past.

Moreover, this does not represent, in the generally accepted sense of the term, the entry of a government into business; it would be merely the entry of the broadcasting commission into business. The commission will be composed of the most able persons available, some of whom will possess a wide knowledge and experience of the wireless industry, and of business generally. The initiative is not to rest with the Minister, but with the commission. It is only upon the recommendations of the commission that the Minister may give his approval for the commission to enter into business. This disposes of the contention of some honorable members opposite that my support of this clause must necessarily involve me in the support of proposals for the general nationalization of industry.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I regret that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has moved his amendment. I cannot believe that he has really read the clause. I know that he is a great individualist, and that he objects to governments entering into business activities of any kind. I point out to him, however, that even the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. -White), another great individualist, is not prepared to go so far as to recommend that the post office be handed over to private enterprise. That honorable member would be the last to invest money in a concern to transmit messages from Cairns to Broome, a distance of thousands of miles, for Id. a word. The honorable member for Swan is opposed to governments concerning themselves with business in any shape or form. Let the Government only govern, is his motto. I remind him that, under the tariff, assistance is given to every manufacturer for everything he makes; otherwise the manufacturers would be driven out of business. These business men do not object in coming, cap in hand, to the Government, whether Nationalist or Labour, to ask assistance through the tariff. Some honorable members opposite seem to see in this proposal another attack on private enterprise. It is nothing of the kind. One can hardly escape the belief that some honorable members are seeking to wreck the bill. They have said that national broadcasting by A class stations is inferior to B class broadcasting. I do not agree with them; but, at any rate, they appear to be doing their best to prevent any improvement taking place in A class broadcasting. They have repeatedly quoted the actions and constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and held it up as something eminently safe and sound, which we could not do better than imitate. I have here a copy of the constitution of that corporation, from which I quote the following: -

The objects for which the corporation is established and incorporated arc . . .

To do all such other tilings as the corporation may deem incidental or conducive to -the attainment of any of the objects or the exercise of any of the powers of the corporation.

The clause to which the honorable member for Swan objects is as follows: -

Subject to this act, -the commission may do such acts and things as it deems incidental or conducive to the proper exploitation of those things which may be beneficial to broadcast programmes, but shall not engage in any subsidiary business which, in the opinion of the Minister, is not desirable or necessary for the purpose for which the commission was established.

That clause is, in all respects, similar to the provision I have quoted regarding the British Broadcasting Corporation. There’ are in existence in some countries laws which prohibit members of legislatures from voting on matters in which they are themselves personally interested. It would be a good thing if there were such a law in this country. Perhaps there would not then be so much obstruction of the business of Parliament whenever the provisions of any proposed legislation cut across individual interests.

Mr.White. - I rise to a point of order. The remarks of the honorable member are grossly offensive. The honorable member said that any member whose personal interests were affected by this bill should not be permitted to vote on it. As I was the last speaker, he may have been referring to me.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I assure the honorable member that I was not referring to him.

Mr White:

– I am in no way interested in the wireless industry, and I wish to make that clear.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have been listening very carefully, and I do not think that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) directed his remarks to any honorable member in particular. In any case, I remind the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) Flint he was not the last speaker.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– As I have pointed out, the commission may not engage in business or subsidiary enterprises withqut the consent of the Minister; but, if the amendment of the honorable member for Swan were carried, and the commission could not in any circumstances embark upon such activity, its usefulness would be considerably curtailed. This provision is entirely safe, and honorable members run no risk in agreeing to it.

Mr Maxwell:

-Would I be in order in moving that all the words after “ broadcasting “ be omitted ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It would be necessary for the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) temporarily to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Gregory:

– I agree to do so.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

I move -

That the following words be omitted: - “ but shall not engage in any subsidiary business which, in the opinion of the Minister, is not desirable or necessary for the purpose for which the commission was established “.

It appears to me that we are appointing a commission to carry on the business of broadcasting in the national interest. I believe, therefore, that the commission should be given practically unlimited powers, and that its work should be beyond the possibility of political influence. Under the clause as it stands, if the commission unanimously concluded that it was necessary to do a certain thing in order to perfect its scheme, its proposals could be vetoed by the Minister who happened to be in power at thetime. The Minister could say that, in his opinion, a particular proposal was undesirable or unnecessary, in which case effect could not be given to it. That would at once hamstring the commission, and restrict its powers for good.

The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) made an important point when he said that broadcasting was not a government business, because that term imported the idea of political influence. A government that is carrying on a business of any kind is always subject to political pressure, and that is why a government business is usually a failure; it is not carried on on strictly business lines, or having regard only to the. public interest. ‘ I understand that the work of this commission is to be far removed from those considerations. The one consideration that should influence * this body is the public good, because it is to control a great national service. The members will be carefully selected for their ability to do this work, and they should be given complete control of it, to enable them to carry it out in the best interests of the community. I understand that the commission will be limited to a fixed income, which is to be derived from a particular source. It will not be expected to carry on its operations at a profit, but to manage them in such a way that its revenue will cover its expenditure. If, in its wisdom, it comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to engage in a certain occupation or trans- action that could be regarded as a business enterprise, it will, under the clause, be powerless to do that’, except with the approval of the Minister.

Mr GREGORY:

– That is hardly a fair definition of “ any subsidiary business.”

Mr MAXWELL:

– In my opinion, it is. The very term “ subsidiary business “ is ambiguous. I find that Webster furnishes forty or fifty definitions of “ business.” In one case it is defined as an occupation or transaction. Placing that definition on the word, I believe that it would be impossible for the commission to engage in any occupation or transaction that it might consider desirable in the interests of national broadcasting, unless it met with the approval of the Minister. I am sure that it was never contemplated by the framers of the bill -that the commission should undertake any electrical business, in competition with private enterprise, for supplying public wants with a view to making a profit. After all, going into a business means entering into a certain pursuit for gain or profit, and that is not contemplated under this bill as being part of the work of the commission. This body is being charged with a great mission. As was remarked by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), it is expected to render a great national service, with no idea of profit. Any surplus tha.t the commission may have is to be spent in furthering the special work on which it will be engaged. Therefore, I suggest that in the best interests of the nation, we should .not tie the hands of the commission as proposed under the clause.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell). The language of the clause is redundant. I have no desire to throw bricks at the Minister, but this and other clauses, notably clause 24, are certainly badly drafted. If the amendment is accepted, the commission will be able to exercise its discretion, without reference to the Minister of the day, in any direction that it may consider compatible with the interests of broadcasting in Australia. The words which the honorable member has proposed to delete do not clarify the clause; but, as has already been suggested, they seem to represent an attempt by thu framers of the bill to placate private enterprise, and to indicate that this particular Government, at any rate, is not favorably disposed to the commission entering into any activity bordering on private enterprise. Either the commission should be free to decide what additional enterprises it shall undertake in the interests of national broadcasting, or it should be prevented from exercising such power. If the latter, where are we to stop? If the system of broadcasting grows in Australia to the extent that it has in some other countries, the operations of the commission will be most extensive, and will go beyond anything of which we can conceive to-day. It may be essential in the public interest for the commission to embark on subsidiary enterprise. As one honorable member has suggested, it may desire to supply cheap wireless sets on the time payment system. It would be well to make the clause read -

Subject to this act, the commission, may do such acts and tilings as it deems incidental or conducive to the proper exploitation of those tilings which may be beneficial to broadcasting.

The committee need not now discuss possible subsidiary activities of the. commission. We should assume that that body will carry out its great mission in the public interest. I do not contend that the Minister should have no power whatever over the commission ; but we should remove all possibility of the exercise of undue political influence. I take it that it will frequently be necessary for the commission to confer with the Minister and the high officials of his department in carrying out its work.

We need have no fear that the commission will immediately establish shops for the sale of wireless sets or similar goods; it will for a long time have much more important work to do than that.. Owing to the great reduction of the spending power of the people, many firms that have recently charged exorbitant sums for wireless material have greatly reduced their prices. The time may come, however, when wireless broadcasting will reach the stage in Australia that has been attained in the United States of America, and then the demand for wireless sets, particularly those of the best quality, will be so great as to afford opportunities of which private enterprise will promptly avail itself. I take the view that if the Government is providing a particular service for the people, such as a telephone or a wireless service, it should he able to take any steps necessary to protect the public from the rapacity of those who engage in the private enterprises associated with that service. We know very well that private enterprise is rapacious if it is unrestrained by healthy competitive influence. It may happen that in a year or two a combine will be organized in Australia to supply wireless equipment. Two or three business houses may come to a so-called honorable understanding, and fix their prices to the great detriment of the general public. In such circumstances the commission should have the power to say “ The public is being robbed because of the distribution methods adopted by suppliers of wireless equipment. Private enterprise is making undue profits out of its activities in this business. We shall, therefore, seek approval from the Minister to undertake the supply of equipment at reasonable prices, as it is our duty surely to protect, the public.” Other dangers, which we cannot foresee at present, may arise. If the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) is agreed to, it. will be possible for the commission to take the steps necessary to ensure that wireless equipment will be available to the public under conditions which will promote the development of broadcasting.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

– I accept the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– This bill was obviously introduced to assist the development of wireless broadcasting in Australia as a national service. I was surprised, therefore, to find that clause 17 contained some of the provisions to which objection has been taken. We should regard broadcasting as a national undertaking, and should not, at this stage, consider the setting-up of an authority which would compete with private enterprise. I was astounded to hear the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), who obviously believes in nationalization, say that, as the commission will be a business concern it should not even consult the Minister in connexion with the establishment of subsidiary industries. The only conclusion I could come to was that he realized that, as the clause would be carried, it was preferable from his point of view that the commission should handle the business rather than the Minister. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), having in mind the policy which his party favours, can see no good whatever in the clause. He considers that the Minister should have complete control because he believes in the policy of nationalization. Apparently he thinks that anything which has to do with private enterprise should be eternally damned, and so he supports absolute ministerial control. The honorable member fbr Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) sought to establish that the Lithgow small arms enterprise, which manufactures combs and cutters for shearing machines, is a parallel case to that which we are now considering.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I did not say that.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– In any case the two enterprises are in no sense parallel. The Lithgow small arms factory had certain equipment installed for a particular purpose, and there was certainly something to be said for finding work for the plant, so that it could be kept in profitable operation. But the proposed wireless commission need have no plant of that nature. Its duty is to do certain things for the development of broadcasting. There is no reason why it should engage in certain activities which would bring it into competition with private enterprise. I shall support the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner. It is our duty to pass constructive legislation ; but we should not leave the way open for a governmental authority unnecessarily to undertake enterprises which should properly be left to private individuals. If the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner is agreed to, the Broadcasting Commission could, at a later date, seek the permission of the Government to engage in subsidiary enterprises connected with “wireless if it considered it necessary to do so. Certain honorable members have argued that the placing of this control in the hands of the commission would lead to the cheapening of wireless facilities to the general public; but we know very well from experience that nothing cheapens the price of commodities and equipment of every kind more than competition. After all, private enterprise controls SO per cent, of the work of the community, and if may be relied upon, because of the competitive spirit which is abroad to keep the price of wireless or other equipment down to a figure which purchasers can afford to pay. The placing of the power to engage in subsidiary enterprises, or in general business, with commissions and boards is not likely to cheapen prices for the general public, as the recent experience of New South Wales in connexion with its honey board, its egg board and its milk board has conclusively shown. The operation of those boards has resulted in an increase in prices to the people. We should not, therefore, take any steps which might stifle competition, for it is the most effective agent in keeping prices at a reasonable level. We should not restrict the commission in any way whatsoever. If it should find it necessary at a later date to engage in certain subsidiary enterprises, the way should be open for it to ask the Government for permission to do so. The amendment’ of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) is, in my opinion, too drastic. I very much prefer the proposal of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), for it will enable the commission, with the approval of the Government, to do certain things if it regards them as necessary to promote the best interest’s of broadcasting.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- It appears as though honorable members generally are favorable to the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell). I should like to know why clause 17 was introduced as it appears in the bill. In my opinion, it would, if agreed to, leave the way open for the commission to. engage in business to any extent’ that it thought desirable. When the Electricity Commission was set up in Victoria, it was not intended that it should engage in ordinary business activities su’ch as the buying and selling of electrical equipment and the like in competition with private enterprise, but to-day the commission has shops open in the city and in a number of country towns expressly for this purpose.

Mr Rosevear:

– Hear, hear !

Mr GREGORY:

– I know that honorable members opposite approve of that policy, but I cannot admire some of the members of my own party for supporting that view. I believe in consistency. I am totally opposed to sacrificing consistency to expediency. If the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) would make some inquiries over a period of years, I think that he would be amazed at the amount of waste that has occurred in connexion with the Lithgow small arms factory, particularly in the years immediately after the war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) ha3, in many public speeches, referred to the fine service which private enterprise is rendering to Australia. The honorable gentleman led us to believe that lie would do everything possible to encourage the development of private enterprise. But almost the first bill introduced by his Government shows an entirely different tendency. We know very well what is going on at the Munition Factory in Maribyrnong. It is entering into competition with private enterprise in many line3. Do honorable members desire the broadcasting commission to emulate that practice? If the members of the United Australia party and the Country party are worth their salt, they will not agree to this clause without deleting from it those provisions which may permit the commission to infringe the rights of private enterprise. We know very well that such concerns as the Electricity Commission, which are competing with private enterprise, are not liable to State, Federal, or municipal taxation. Their competition, therefore, is on an unfair basis. It is not desirable that we should permit the broadcasting commission to follow these other bodies in their trading enterprises.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– I regret that I cannot support the amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), as it opens the door for an extension of government trad- ing. Honorable members opposite are, of course, believers in nationalization.

Mr Rosevear:

– Socialization, not nationalization.

Mr WHITE:

– The supporters of the Government have recently toured the Commonwealth declaring that their policy was that governments . should govern and not trade. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has referred to the trading activities of the Electricity Commission of Victoria. That body has recently built a skyscraper in Melbourne, and has established shops for the sale of electrical equipment throughout the city and in many country centres. We should frame our statutes so that that kind of thing could be prevented. The object of the amendment of the honorable member for Swan is perfectly clear. He wishes to prevent the commission from engaging in any business whatever. The amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner will spoil the clause if it is agreed to, and I do not think any honorable member who is opposed to government trading can consistently vote for it.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- This afternoon many honorable members, and particularly the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), have given one of the most remarkable exhibitions of somersaulting that I have witnessed for a long time. Honorable members who persistently claim that under no circumstances will they countenance political control over a commission now desire to place the Broadcasting Commission under the direction of the Government. I support this amendment, because, if accepted, it will give the commission a free hand. It merely says to the commission, in effect, “ This Parliament is prepared to trust you ; go ahead “.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The issue has definitely been raised whether this commission shall or shall not engage in manufacturing and other business enterprises. I appeal to honorable members on this side to adhere to the opinions that they have advocated for years. Time and again they have declared that the Government must not enter into competition with private enterprise. This commission is to be established to regulate broadcasting - not to erect a factory, build wireless machines, and dabble in other business transactions that should be left to private enterprise. The amendment of the honorable member strikes out the only partial prohibition in the bill against the Government engaging in commercial enterprises in opposition to private activities. If accepted, this amendment will give the commission power to engage in business-

Mr Martens:

– Hear, hear! »

Mr NAIRN:

– If I were a member of the party opposite I also should say, “ Hear, hear !” 1 admire honorable members of the Labour party for their consistency, a trait that is not at present noticeable among many honorable members on this side. We have had many examples of how commissions, like government departmental heads, when given the Opportunity, will launch out into active opposition with private enterprise, all too eager to expand, as far as possible, the business they control, . in many instances to bring them in a larger salary. I know that the desire to do something great is also involved.

Mr Maxwell:

– Why put in the word “subsidiary”? Why not say, “Shall not enter into any business”?

Mr NAIRN:

– Because this commission is being appointed to do business; to develop broadcasting. Its activities should be limited to that endeavour.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Grey

.- My support is for the amendment that was moved by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). Honorable members of this party were returned to preserve the interests of private enterprise. The amendment of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) leaves the gate wide open for the commission to enter upon any business that it deems necessary. It might consider it necessary to sell radio, equipment on timepayment, on the plea that that is conducive to the development of broadcasting. It is essential that Ave should make these provisions specific; also that Ave should prevent ministerial interference Avith the operations of the commission. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) declared that listeners would benefit if the Broacasting Commission were allowed to engage in the making and sale of radio accessories. I point out that the Government is a part-owner in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. If that concern is exploiting the public, surely it is the duty of the Government to see that prices are reduced to a reasonable scale. In that way, it can protect the interests of listeners.

It has been claimed that only services which will not yield a profit are delegated to the Government to control, and railways have been mentioned. Railways have been successfully conducted by private enterprise in other countries, and even in Australia. I instance the Midland Railway of Western Australia. The fact that that organization is running at a profit demonstrates that it is the go vernment administration, and not our railways, that is at fault.

Mr STEWART:
Parramatta

– I shall preface my remarks by referring to a statement that was made by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green), and obviously directed at me. I shall not couch my reply in offensive terms, but shall merely say that the insinuation that the attitude of certain honorable members on this side is dictated by personal interests would not have been made had the honorable member for Kalgoorlie been familiar with the circumstances. I am not making any money out of broadcasting. I simply finance, at heavy expense and recurring weekly loss, a venture designed to assist certain religious organizations in Sydney. I only wish that J might have the opportunity to make the honorable member prove his contention.

I object to the amendment of the honorable member forFawkner (Mr. Maxwell), because I believe that the present unfortunate condition of Australia is largely due to the fact that during the past few decades administrations have ex tended governmental and quasigovernmental trading. I instance cattle stations, fish shops, saw-mills, timber yards, and, to come nearer home, Canberra hotels. I shall not be a party to- an extension of that principle, and, therefore, will vote against the amendment.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

– I and honorable members who support my amendment have been charged with inconsistency. I think that the inconsistency is on the other side. To be consistent the honorable member for Swan (MrGregory), and those who support him, ought to vote against the bill in toto. The bill is designed to establish a great national enterprise, which is in definite and distinct opposition to private enterprise. The greater should include the lesser, and, if the honorable member for Swan, and his supporters, are in favour of putting into the hands of the commission the conduct of this great national enterprise in opposition to private enterprise, they ought, also, to be consistent, to put. into its hands the power to engage in subsidiary businesses that are considered necessary to the success of the greater business.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Maxwell’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 20

Ma jority . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 -

For the purpose of the exercise of its powers and functions under this act, the commission may compile, prepare, print, publish, issue, circulate and distribute, whether gratis or otherwise, in such manner as it thinks fit, such papers, magazines, periodicals, books, pamphlets, circulars and other literary matter, us it thinksfit.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause: - “ (including the programmes of national broadcasting stations and other stations) :

Provided that, prior to the publication of any programme in pursuance of this section, a copy of the programme shall be made available at an office of the commission on equal ter ms to the publishers of any newspaper, magazine or journal published in the Commonwealth.”

A fear has been expressed that privatelyowned journals, which now publish broadcasting programmes, may be precluded from doing so in the future, and that the commission will assume the exclusive right to issue this information. The amendment will ensure that programmes will continue to be available to the publishers of private journals.

Mr Rosevear:

– What is the meaning of the phrase, “on equal terms”?

Mr FENTON:

– No favoritism will be shown. In making these programmes available for publication in other than its own journal, the commission will deal out evenhanded justice.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- Some honorable members, with the approval of this Government, the members of which have always expressed themselves as opposed to government trading showed by their vote on the previous clause that they are prepared to make the commission a socialistic enterprise. Those honorable gentlemen should not miss the opportunity, which this clause affords, to confer upon , the commission specific power to engage in the manufacture of wireless sets and other electrical equipment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19- (2.) The commission shall not, without the approval of the Minister -

  1. acquire any property, the cost of acquisition of which exceeds the sum of five thousand pounds, or in any manner dispose of any property having an original or book value exceeding the sum of five thousand pounds ; or
  2. enter into any lease for a period exceeding five years.
Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I move-

That sub-clause 2 be omitted.

The Minister should not have any control over the commission in the conduct of its operations. From my experience of Ministers, I prefer to trust the commission. I have no faith in the parboiled socialism that we are enacting in this bill. Again we are afforded proof that the socialistic enterprises which have done so much damage to Australia are as much the responsibility of members of the Nationalist party as of the Labour party. I am convinced, however, that the majority of the people outside the Labour party are opposed to government trading, and I hope that when they have the opportunity they will declare that they do not want semi-socialistic members and Ministers. Because I believe that many of Australia’s existing troubles are attributable to the unwise extension of governmental operations, my efforts will be directed to curtailing, rather than extending, them.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- To strike out sub-clause 2 would be to weaken dangerously a provision of which I approve generally. The chairman, of the commission will be appointed for only five years, and sub-clause 2 provides that the commission may not enter into any lease for a period exceeding five years. At the end of any such term a government may decide not to re-appoint the - retiring commissioners. The new appointees should be in a position to review all leases and commitments made by their predecessors. Clause 2 provides a necessary safeguard ; one set of commissioners should not be allowed to enter into leases that will commit their successors.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

– I am surprised that honorable members should seek to limit parliamentary control, through the Government, of the financial operations of the commission. Apart from the illustrations of extravagance and inefficiency mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) earlier to-day, I have a lively recollection of the failure of the first War Service Homes Commission. It involved the Commonwealth in serious losses, which would have been even greater but for the intervention of the Public Accounts Committee. In that’ instance, an inefficient commission was not sufficiently under the control of Parliament. On behalf of the Government, I assure the committee that the commission to control broadcasting will consist of four men and, probably, one women - the most qualified that are available in Australia and the proposed limitation on the expenditure is £5,000. There should be no objection to that, because the Treasurer, who conducts the financial operations of the Government, will be consulted in regard to all financial transactions, and in a matter of this kind no Minister would agree to any expenditure without first consulting his colleagues in the Cabinet. When we ar.e delegating certain duties to the commission, it is only right that there should be a certain oversight of its operations, particularly financial operations. I hope that the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) will not persist with his amendment. This is one of the safety clauses in the bill. It does not entirely limit the operations of the commission, nor does it dispense with ministerial or governmental responsibility.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- While I agree with the honorable member for Perth that the Government should not enter further into the field of private enterprise, I feel that as this is purely a financial provision, and as the Government will, by collecting the licence-fees, hold the purse strings, it would be unwise to have another spending authority. I, therefore, do not support the amendment. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) argued that those of us who, because the bill was a government measure, did not oppose it at the outset, should support all its provisions. There are, of course, undertakings which are too gigantic for private enterprise to control; but it does not follow that every branch of enterprise should be exploited by the Government. The honorable member for Fawkner surely would not suggest that the post office, which is a government undertaking, should manufacture its own supplies or print its own stationery. The argument could be carried to an absurd point.

Mr Maxwell:

– If it were in the public interest that the Postal Department should manufacture its own supplies, that should be done.

Mr WHITE:

– I admit that. But experience has shown that even such government enterprises as railways, the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and other activities, would be more successful if controlled by private enterprise.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (Authorized transmissions).

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I take the strongest objection to this provision, because it would allow any political party in power to serve its own ends in respect of the use of A class stations. Sub-clause 1 gives the Minister power to transmit from all national broadcasting stations any matter the transmission of which is directed by the Minister as being in the public interest. Ministerial statements of any description, and of a highly political or controversial character, may be deemed by the Minister to be in the public interest, and as a result, transmitted over the wireless. Sub-clause 2 allows the Minister to exercise discretion as to the transmission of statements of members of opposing political parties. He will, therefore, have power to stifle the voice of his opponents over the wireless. I am not prepared to accept the clause, and I hope that the committee will not agree to it in its present form.

Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP

– Nothing like what the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has inferred is intended, under this clause. Let me give one illustration of the use to which broadcasting stations have been put in recent times. The Postmaster-General has issued instructions that the deputy directors of. posts and telegraphs in the various States shall, where practicable, broadcast news of the occurence of bushfires or floods, so that immediate assistance may be rendered in the areas affected. That is the sort of transmission covered by this clause.

Section 2 of the British Broadcasting Corporation charter provides that the corporation shall, whenever so requested by any department of the Government, at the corporation’s own expense, send from all or any of its stations any matter which that department may desire to broadcast. In this instance, the broadcasting service is to be used, not for political, but for national purposes.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

TARIFF PROPOSALS (Nos. 3 and 4) 1932.

Customs Duties.

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr GULLETT:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Henty · UAP

– I move -

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1021-1930 he amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the fourth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1921-1930 as so amended (in lieu of the duties (specified in Tariff Proposals).
That in this Resolution " Tariff Proposals " means, the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 25th February, 1932 (other than Proposals imposing Special Duty of Customs and Primage Duty) ; and 17th March, 1932. That the Duties of Customs hereunder set out shall be deemed to bo an amendment of the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the 25th February, 1932, within the meaning of the second paragraph of the Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 25th February, 1932, imposing a special duty of Customs. That, excepting by mutual agreement or until after six months' notice has been given to the Government *of* the Dominion of New Zealand, nothing in this Resolution shall affect any goods the produce or manufacture of the Dominion of New Zealand entering the Commonwealth of Australia from the Dominion of New Zealand. ifr. *Gullett.* By omitting the whole of Prefatory Note (7) and inserting in its stead the following Prefatory Note :- " (7) Unless the Tariff otherwise provides or the Minister otherwise directs, any goods composed of two or more materials shall be deemed for the purpose of classification to be composed wholly of the material of chief value in the goods, provided that when the respective materials are of equal value the goods shall be deemed for the aforesaid purpose to be composed wholly of the material that would make the goods liable to the higher or highest rate of duty. " By adding a now Prefatory Note (11) as follows : - " (11) Whenever goods are composed of two or more separate articles, even though such articles are specifically mentioned in the Tariff, the Minister may classify the goods under such item or items as he directs." [»] **Mr.** Gullett. Cio] ifr. *Gullett.* These two tariff proposals contain only four alterations of duties - three reductions and one increase. They have been introduced primarily to facilitate the tariff debate which will take place almost immediately. I am not able to indicate the date of the debate, but it will be opened within a few sitting days. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Will that complete the consideration of the tariff in this House? {: #debate-23-s36 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
UAP -- The present intention is to proceed with the debate on those items which have been amended by this Government, and consequently the first proposal incorporates practically all of those items. Where the Government has decided to revert to the tariff rates and wording of 1921-28, the items do not, of course, appear *in* either schedule. In a few instances the items which have been amended by this Government have had to bo incorporated in the second schedule, because of difficulties arising in drafting. I can give the committee the assurance, however, that practically all the important changes effected since the Government assumed office are contained in the schedule which it is proposed to debate within the next few days. The second schedule incorporates those items which will not be debated at present. First, there is the schedule introduced by the Scullin Government, and validated prior to the last election. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Temporarily. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- That is so. This Government introduced a number of amendments to that schedule, but. instead of revalidating it, substituted another resolution covering the amended schedule as a whole. I am now separating the amendments introduced by this Government from the other items of the Scullin schedule so as to give the House an immediate opportunity to discuss them. There is no time available just now for the consideration of the whole of the amended Scullin schedule, but we are fulfilling our undertaking to the House to provide immediately an opportunity to debate the tariff changes made by this Government. The first decrease in duties relates to item 105 k. Piece goods, wool or chiefly of wool and admixtures of wool and silk for the manufacture of neckties, are reduced from 20 per cent., British, and 25 per cent., foreign, to 10 per cent., British, and 20 per cent., foreign. This represents the raw material used by tie manufacturers in this country. Another decrease is in item 114 e - "Wool felt hoods for girls' and women's hats. By amending the wording of this item the fixed rates of duty are reduced from 45s. a dozen, British, and 60s., general, to 20s., British, and 30s., general. The duty on item 170 a - dredging and excavating machinery of navvy and similar types of a working weight exceeding 75 tons - is being reduced from 27½ per cent., British, and 40 per cent., general, to free, British, and 10 per cent., general. I now come to the only instance in which duties have been increased. This is item. 392 a - cotton yarns. The duty on these is being increased from 35 per cent., British, and 55 per cent., general, plus 3d. per lb. to varying rates. From count No. 1 to No. 12, a flat rate' of duty of 4d. per lb., British, and 7d. per lb., general, is being imposed. From count No. 13 to No. 31 an additional flat rate of¼d. per lb., for each count above ' No. 12 will operate, and from counts No. 32 to No. 49 a flat rate of 9d. per lb., British, and1s. per lb., general, will operate. In all cases these flat rates will be in addition to the existing ad valorem duty of 35 per cent., British, and 55 per cent., general. In the case of folded yarns, being combinations of any count from No. 1 to No. 49, the fixed rate of duty shall be payable on the resultant count. Only two of the alterations effected require any comment, and these relate to wool felt hoods for girls' and women's hats and cotton yarns. In the case of wool felt hoods, I propose briefly to review the changes in duty. In 1928 the duties were - In November, 1929, the fixed rates were increased to 20s., British, and 30s., general. In March, 1931, the rates were not altered, but by amending the wording to exclude such hoods as were not in conical shape, and which had been proofed, tipstretched, sandpapered or polished, hoods which complied with the trade definition of a hood were made dutiable at per dozen 45s., British, 60s., general, or 45 per cent, and 60 per cent. In other words, duty was being charged on these hoods at the same rates as those charged on the completed hat. The wool felt hood item, therefore, became redundant, and by reason of the changed wording the rates of duty became prohibitive, and large quantities of hoods were bonded, and have not since been cleared. The cost of these hoods, which were dutiable at 45s. a dozen, British, was only about 17s. or 18s. a dozen. Between 4,000 and 5,000 dozen have been bonded ever since. The position has arisen that local wool felt hood manufacturers cannot supply the demand, and millinery manufacturers are putting off hands because they cannot purchase supplies of hoods. One large millinery manufacturing establishment has been forced to dispense with a large number of employees. It will be appreciated by honorable members that to allow thousands of pounds worth of fashion goods to remain in bond for a lengthy period, particularly when such goods have been paid for by the Australian purchaser, constitutes both an individual and national loss. The amending of the wording of the item should allow the hoods now in bond to be cleared, and will result in increased employment in the millinery trade, No hardship can possibly accrue to Australian hood manufacturers as they have already been booked up to their capacity for the remainder of the season. The manufacturers in Australia agree to this proposed reduction of duty. The season has been a peculiar one with respect to orders, not only in connexion with wool felt hoods, but with respect to many classes of textiles as well. After a very slack season last year, resulting in considerable unemployment, there has come, within the last two or three months, an unexpected rush, of orders. The explanation probably is that retailers, and even wholesalers, have been holding off because of the uncertain financial position, until their stocks have become exhausted. Now the orders are coming in so quickly that the manufacturers are unable to increase their output quickly enough. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Is the new duty to be wholly ad valorem ? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- No ; it is an alternative duty. The Government is pursuing its policy of not making any drastic changes in duties without receiving a report from the Tariff Board. The duty of 20s. a dozen British, is still equivalent to 100 per cent, ad valorem, and thi3 gives some idea of the amount of protection which the last Government deemed necessary, when it fixed the duty at 4.5s. a dozen. The whole subject of duties on hoods and hats has been referred to. the Tariff Board. The Government has, since the introduction of the cotton yarn tariff resolution of March last, given further consideration to the duties on cotton yarns. With the rapid development of the spinning industry in Australia, the position would have arisen that the bounties on cotton yarn would amount to well over £100,000 annually. Indeed, we expected it to reach that sum in the next financial year. Some idea of this rapid development may be obtained from a perusal of the bounty payments on cotton yarns since the inception of the bounty. Details, of these are - It is anticipated that for this financial year bounty payments on cotton yarns will total approximately £120,000.' Obviously, the payment^ of such a sum under present financial conditions would involve serious inconvenience, aud that was one of the factors which prompted the Government to alter the duty. Action is therefore being taken by the Government to convert the bounty-cum-duty into a straightout duty, and the present resolution is the first step in this direction. Action will be taken later to repeal the existing bounty legislation insofar as cotton yarns are concerned, as on and from the 1st July next. In the meantime, the cottonspinners have given a guarantee that they will not increase their 'prices until July next, and then only by an amount not exceeding the equivalent of the bounty which they will lose. In many cases, it is anticipated that the increase in price will bc somewhat less than the present bounty. The period which will ensue between the present time and July next should enable spinners to adjust their manufacturing activities to the new conditions. The bounty on seed cotton will continue to be paid in accordance with existing legislation. It was previously stated that when the schedule had been divided in the form in which it now appears, the debate would be immediately proceeded with. Owing, however, to the intervention of other business, we are not able to proceed with the debate at present, even if honorable members had been ready to do so. I propose, therefore, to move presently that progress be reported, but I assure honorable members that, within a very few days, the schedule covered by the first of these resolutions will be placed before them for debate. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- What does the Government propose to do with regard to the tariff schedule temporarily approved by Parliament last year? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- We are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the revision of that schedule by the Tariff Board. Recently I made a great many references to the Tariff Board, and I am carefully selecting those items as to which there has been considerable controversy. As I receive reports on those items, I shall submit the recommendations and proposals of the board to Parliament, which will be afforded an early opportunity of discussing them. Progress reported. *Sitting suspended from 6.11 to 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 258 {:#debate-24} ### AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION BILL *In committee* (Consideration resumed, from page 199) : Clause 22- (1.) The commission shall not broadcast advertisements in general, but ma)', with the approval of the Minister, and subject to such stipulations (if any) as are contained in that approval, broadcast announcements having some definite relation to particular items contained in the programme which it is broadcasting. (2.) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the commission from broadcasting, if it thinks fit, sponsored programmes accompanied by acknowledgments to the persons by whom they were made available. {: #debate-24-s0 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- The amendments which I propose to submit would make this clause read as follows: - (1.) The commission shall not broadcast advertisements. (2.) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the commission from broadcasting, if it thinks fit: *(a)* any announcement of its own future programmes; (6) a programme supplied by any organization, firm or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical or theatrical production or in educational pursuits; or (c) a programme supplied by any organization, firm or person, provided the programme is not, in the opinion of the commission, being used as an advertisement. I now move - >That all the words from and including the words " in general " to and including the words ' it is broadcasting," sub-clause 1, be omitted. The Government considers . that it would be encroaching upon the rights of the B class stations in Australia if the A class stations were allowed to broadcast advertisements or sponsored programmes. These amendments will leave the A class stations with ample power to utilize the services of the best artists in the community. In many instances, these services should be obtainable free of charge, and it is considered that lectures, oratorios and orchestral selections will be broadcast through the A class stations. {: #debate-24-s1 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- Every member, I understand, has received a circular letter from the Associated Press, and I draw attention to the remarkable fact that with the exception of one word the Minister's amendment to clause 18 is identical with that suggested by the Associated Press. Similarly, the amendment now before the committee is om all fours with that recommended by the Associated Press. This fact conveys the impression that if the Government obeys the instructions of the Associated Press, it is promised their support at the elections. This press merely makes its wishes known in the matter of amendments to the law, and the present Government, which claims to be independent, and to take no notice of outside bodies, meekly carries out its instructions! {: #debate-24-s2 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 .- Shortly after the Minister moved the second reading of this bill, trouble occurred over the measure in the Cabinet. It was a matter of common knowledge that the bill was to be dropped. It was reported that the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Penton)** threatened to resign, and I believe that the friction was due entirely to the clause under consideration. The amendment proposed by the Government in this clause alters the whole complexion of the bill. As the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Martens)** has pointed out, the present amendment conforms word for word with that suggested in a circular letter addressed to all members by the Associated Press. I sympathize with the Minister in the circumstances. At heart, at any rate, I believe that .he stands for the bill as originally drafted. When he threatened to take drastic action if the original bill were not adhered to, he felt that his principles had been violated, so it was reported. Members' opposite made no secret of the fact that this bill was to be dropped by the Government. After a certain time it was resurrected, and was submitted with amendments, in accordance with the desires of , the press that stands behind this Government. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- No. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- The honorable member, with his tongue in his cheek, has tried to cross swords with the Lang party when it has acted in accordance with the chest of the Trades Hall. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- I submit that allegations concerning the Lang group, or any other section, have nothing to do with this bill. {: #debate-24-s3 .speaker-JOS} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell: -- The honorable member for Kalgoorlie must confine his remarks to the clause under discussion. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- I was directing attention to the reason for the *volte face* on the part of the Government. It should be made widely known that the press of this country entirely controls the actions of the present Government. . The bill is to be robbed of one of its most useful' provisions. The right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** declared that the measure was only a pale shadow of that under which the British Broadcasting Corporation operates, and the Minister's amendments will result in a further departure from the British example. I protest as vigorously as possible against the Government's action in depriving the bill of certain characteristics which were designed to ensure that the public interest would be served. A certain newspaper controls broadcasting stations in two capital cities; one in Melbourne, and the other in Adelaide. This newspaper is not satisfied to create public opinion through its columns, but it tries to determine what shall be broadcast over the air. It is well known that anybody opposed to its political policy is called upon to pay an exorbitant fee for the use of its broadcasting service. That this service should so readily be made available to anti-Labour bodies shows either that those bodies have large revenues at their command or that they are charged only a small fee. One newspaper company, for an expenditure of between £200 and £300 a week is said to receive exorbitant fees for sponsored programmes and advertisements. The B class stations want the cream of the broadcasting business. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr Stewart: -- They are not getting it. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- I have no objection to the B class stations getting all the advertisements they can secure ; but sponsored programmes are different. The amendment stultifies the national broadcasting service. According to the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Parkhill),** a sponsored programme is one which advertises socks, tooth brushes, face powder, and similar articles frequently during its performance; but that is not a true description. A sponsored programme may last for some hours without one word being said by way of advertisement, after the preliminary announcement. Such programmes are usually supplied by wellknown firms or companies like the Shell Oil Company and General Motors Australia Limited, which regard it as good business to put- on the best programmes possible. The B class stations probably do not pay anything for such programmes; indeed, they may receive some revenue from them. To that I have no objection. It is difficult to understand the reversal of policy on the part of the Government, unless it be that it has acted at the behest of the press of this country. In my second-reading speech I said that the portion of the bill dealing with sponsored programmes would not be acceptable to the press of this country. I warned the Minister that a fight was imminent, and I pleaded with him, in the interests of the people rather than of those of the moneyed sections of the community, to keep the bill intact. It appears, however, that Cabinet has accepted dictation from the press. For the honour of this assembly, I hope that a firm stand will be taken in the interests of the people. {: #debate-24-s4 .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr STEWART:
Parramatta -- Like the last speaker, I am opposed to the amendment, but for entirely different reasons. With the possible exception of paragraph *a,* I claim that the amendment is unnecessary. The clause provides that the commission shall not broadcast advertisements in general, but there is a proviso in sub-clause *a* which reads - >Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the commission from broadcasting announcements of its future programmes. Should it be urged that such announcements would be a breach of the main provision contained in sub-clause %, then I would agree to the proposed new paragraph a. But bearing in mind that the main object of the clause is to prevent the commission from broadcasting advertisements, I cannot see the necessity for proposed new paragraphs *b* and *c.* There is nothing in the main clause to suggest that the commission may not broadcast a programme supplied by any organization, firm, or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical, or theatrical production or in educational pursuits. We could as well provide that nothing in the clause shall prohibit the commission from broadcasting any gramophone records, or any vocal solo. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green)** said that he had no objection to the field of ordinary advertising being reserved to the B class stations. He was fair enough to admit that such stations must get their revenue from advertising. He described the fees from that source as the cream of their revenue. In my opinion it is only the skimmed milk, the cream being represented by the 12s. each from 350,000 listeners' licences which goes to the A class stations. I feel confident that the B class stations would willingly exchange milk jugs with the A class stations. The honorable gentleman is prepared to allow the B class stations to enjoy, unrestricted, the ordinary advertising fees, but he considers that the more dignified method of advertising - the sponsored programmes - should be made available to the A class stations. In considering this matter we should have regard to the interests of the listeners rather than those of the associated press, and the other bodies which have been mentioned. In the interests of listeners .the broadcasting advertisements relating to tooth paste, combs, and face powders should cease, in favour of the more dignified sponsored programmes. Indeed, that is the tendency of the better class B stations, for which I claim to be able to speak. They are forsaking the direct, method of advertising, and the cluttering of musical programmes to the annoyance of listeners, in favour of sponsored programmes. If the A class stations are permitted to broadcast spon- sored programmes, the B class stations will be thrown to the wolves, and listeners will suffer accordingly. My chief complaint against the amendment applies to paragraphs *b* and *c,* which I consider to be unnecessary. {: #debate-24-s5 .speaker-K0A} ##### Mr GABB:
Angas .- Important though this bill is, I feel that at this time we could well be engaged on even more important business. I have not previously spoken on this measure-., but I feel that I would be acting in a cowardly marner if I did not refer to the change of front on the part of the Government in regard to sponsored programmes. In this matter, as in others, I am independent. In the Government's change of front, we have au illustration of the power which outside bodies have over political parties. It is regrettable that the interests of the people should be subordinated to big outside interests. {: #debate-24-s6 .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- J am surprised that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green),** should be amazed at the attitude of the Government for he should know that it is only doing what its masters outside dictate. When the Labour party was in power its opponents said that it took its instructions from those who supported it. Had that been the case, the Labour party would not now be in Opposition in this chamber. When the House adjourned over Easter it was known that the Government would not proceed with this measure until the press had decided on certain amendments to it. After the introduction of the bill, messages were broadcast through B class stations urging the people in country districts to communicate with their representatives objecting to sponsored programmes being taken away from such stations. If the commission is to be successful, its hands must not be tied; but its highly paid manager and other officers should be given a free hand to supply listeners with the best programmes possible, whether sponsored or otherwise. The Minister in charge of the bill has always advocated the nationalization of public utilities, and the bill which he introduced was along those lines; but at the crack of the whip by outside interested parties he has accepted amendments which were framed in the offices of the Melbourne *Herald* and the Brisbane *Courier.* {: .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: -- That is not correct. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- -During the term of the previous Government these very newspapers had certain members in their offices in Melbourne and elsewhere, and tried to dictate to them the policy which they should support. They quite overlooked the fact that those members were elected to Parliament to act in the interests of the people. The Government's change of front is altogether too glaring. Everybody knows that strong efforts are being made in certain directions to get members to approve of a policy which would mean a breaking away from the national broadcasting system. Every effort is being made to damage the A class stations because they enter into serious competition with the B class stations. If *n* success of broadcasting can be made by putting advertisements over the air, why should not the subsidy of 12s. per licence, which at present is paid to the A class stations, be diverted from them and be spent in the provision of relay stations Or placed in a sinking fund in order to recoup the taxpayers for any loss that might be incurred through the failure of the broadcasting commission to make the stations under their control profitable. If honorable members opposite would support a policy of this kind they would do something effective to assist the primary producers. Here is an opportunity for the honorable member for Forrest **(Mr. Prowse),** for instance, not only to lift a burden from the primary producers, but also to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers generally. We had the spectacle this afternoon of twenty government supporters crossing to this side of the chamber, and of members on this side going over on the Government side. Our object in crossing over was to support a provision which would tend towards the nationalization of broadcasting. It was demonstrated to the PostmasterGeneral this afternoon that a majority of the committee favours the adoption of that policy. We know that honorable gentleman's views very well. He could not throw overboard in a moment a policy which he has advocated for a lifetime. No wonder he is hanging his head during this debate, for he knows that the proposal now before the committee is designed to bolster up private enterprise aud to protect the interests of those who have their money invested in B class stations. But what about the interests of the general taxpayers whose money is invested in A class stations? The original provisions of the bill should he retained insofar as they relate to sponsored programmes. A discretion should be left to the commission in this respect. The general taxpayers will be obliged to find the money to pay this commission, and it should, therefore, be given some power. During most of last week we discussed whether the commission should or should not' be subject to political interference. We were asked to decide whether certain tilings should be left to the GovernorGeneral or to the Minister, although it was said by some honorable members that both proposals meant the same thing. The vote that was taken was supposed to have decided that the commission should not be subject to government interference, and yet it is now proposed to dictate to it. The PostmasterGeneral told us this afternoon that he was sure that the four men and one woman who would be appointed to the commission would be thoroughly capable of running the business which would be placed in. their control. If that is so, why not leave a discretionary power with them in this regard ? I admire the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** because of his consistent attitude; but it is impossible to admire some other honorable members for the same reason. I consider that the commission should be given power to determine whether it will or will not arrange for sponsored programmes to be put over the air by the A class stations. {: #debate-24-s7 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- There is very little force in the argument that because an idea originated in the press it should not be adopted by the Government. Many valuable suggestions have originated in the press at different times. Governments do well to adopt good ideas irrespective of where they come from. It is true that sections of the press have circularized honorable members, protesting against the commission being given power to put advertising matter over the air from A class stations. The writers of those letters were interested parties, and they are, of course, entitled to their opinion. But it is well known that objections to the broadcasting of advertisements from A class stations have been made from many other disinterested quarters. Those honorable members who have asserted that the amendment now before the committee dealing with sponsored programmes was adopted because of outside pressure, are quite in error. The details of this amendment had been considered by honorable members before any suggestions of the kind were made in the press. It is well known that the proposal to provide for the broadcasting of sponsored programmes from A class stations was criticized during the secondreading debate on this bill. {: #debate-24-s8 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- The committee is indebted to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green)** for his defence of the provisions of the original bill in this connexion. We may assume that this bill was not hurriedly-introduced. No doubt the PostmasterGeneral submitted the draft of the bill to Cabinet. As an ex-Cabinet Minister I know that it is the usual custom for the Minister in charge of a bill to place it before Cabinet clause by clause, and obtain approval of its provisions. We may take it that the provisions of this bill, received the endorsement of the thirteen members of the Cabinet, before being submitted to caucus or to Parliament. No doubt those who have vested interests in wireless broadcasting have brought pressure to bear upon the Postmaster-General and his colleagues in Cabinet to make the alterations that are now proposed. But what surprises us is that the Government should have yielded so quickly to this pressure. The members of the Government, like private members, doubtless received communications from the big newspaper combines- {: .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr Stacey: -- And ignored them! {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Stacey)** can hardly expect us to believe that; because the amendments proposed by the Government are almost identical with those which the newspaper combines requested. For instance, paragraph *a* of this amendment reads - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. any announcement of its own future programmes. The letter from the Brisbane Newspaper Company Limited, of Queen and Edward streets, Brisbane, dated the 31st March, copies of which were no doubt sent to all honorable members, requested that the clause should be amended to read - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. any announcement of its own future programmes. Paragraph *b* in the Minister's amendment reads - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. a programme supplied by any organization, firm, or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical, or theatrical production, or in educational pursuits, or . . . The letter from which I have already quoted, suggests the following amendment : - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. ) A programme supplied' by any organization, firm, or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical, or theatrical production, or in any educational pursuits; or . . . Paragraph c of the Minister's amendment reads - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. A programme supplied by any organization, firm, or person provided that the programme is not, in the opinion of the commission, being used as an advertisement. The letter from which I am quoting suggests these words - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. A programme supplied by any organization, firm, or person provided that the programme is not, in the opinion of the commission, being used as an advertisement. That letter, which is signed by Charles H. Briggs, suggests almost word for word the amendments which the Government is now proposing. No doubt other members of the newspaper organizations of Australia have sent similar letters to the Government. In face of this, it surely cannot be argued that the Government has not listened to the requests of those with vested interests in wireless or other like enterprises. I give the honorable member for Angas **(Mr. Gabb)** credit for objecting to this change of front on the part of the Government. If the provisions of the bill were right originally, what has happened to make them wrong? The bill was introduced only a few weeks ago, and given the blessing of the Cabinet. We have heard a good deal about the British Broadcasting Corporation lately. In the draft licence and agreement between the British Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation there is a provision which reads - >Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as precluding the corporation from - (a.) Broadcasting matter provided gratuitously by any person with or without an acknowledgment of such provision by means of the broadcasting service. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- That is a provision which this Government has thrown overboard. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- That is so, but if it is good enough for Great Britain why is it not good enough for us? One day we are told to tune in to Great Britain, and the next day we are told to tune out again. On this point I should like to hear again the views of the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Gibson),** who was Postmaster-General in the Bruce-Page Government for seven years. No one would doubt him to be a capable exponent of any case he thinks in the interest of Australia. Speaking of sponsored programmes, he said - >I take it that sponsored programmes are those provided by business firms at their own cost, the firms being permitted only to state that they are responsible for the programmes. > >Unless steps are taken to control the activities of B class stations, it would be possible for one of them to secure . for, say, £3,000 the exclusive right to broadcast a test cricket match between English and Australian elevens, and the *A* class stations could not then broadcast a word about it except as a news item. {: #debate-24-s9 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is., doubtless, aware that he must not quote from a speech of an honorable member in the current session. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- By securing the right to broadcast the result of a test cricket match between an Australian eleven and an English eleven, a B class station could deprive the national broadcasting stations of the right to do so. There are 46 B class stations in Australia. The honorable member for Corangamite has asked why should these first applicants have been given licences while more deserving subsequent applicants have been shut out. Although these licences are given for a specific term on the definite understanding that the Government may refuse to renew them, these B class stations have become established, and *some* of them are supplying a useful service. Nevertheless, I hold that broadcasting should be con trolled in a national way. National stations can broadcast the results of test cricket matches better than B class stations, because they cover a much wider area; and if it came to a matter of competing for sponsored programmes, would score every time. One would imagine that honorable members opposite have no interest in national broadcasting stations. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers of the country are shareholders in these national stations, and if more revenue can be earned by the stations, the result should be not only better programmes, but also greater opportunities for our artists and musicians. Our talented boys and girls will be given new avenues of employment., The majority of the B class stations broadcast canned music and phonograph records instead of encouraging Australian artists. I regret that the ' Government should have sent the PostmasterGeneral into this chamber with a bill containing this provision, and then suddenly backed down, because certain newspaper organizations sent along circulars, and created in . Ministers the fear that if they did not quickly yield to pressure, they might lose press publicity. {: #debate-24-s10 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- I admire the way in which honorable members of the Opposition can raise a hare and raise a perspiration in pursuit of it. I also admire the vehemence of their remarks. They have claimed that ministerial members support the deletion of this clause relating to advertising because some newspapers favour the amendment, and they have quoted from a circular dated the 31st March. As a matter of fact, I criticized the Government's bill, particularly this clause, long before the 17th March when the House adjourned. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The honorable member was supplied with the material that was afterwards included in circulars to members. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- That is not correct. I regret that honorable members opposite have such fertile imaginations. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- The honorable member was ready to jump when told to jump. Mr.WHITE. - Honorable members opposite are so accustomed to domination that they cannot credit the fact that others are not controlled. It is true that Cabinet agreed to the bill as originally introduced, but its contents were not made known to any member of the party outside the Ministry, and I, as a member of a free party, not a tradeshalldominated caucus, together with the honorable members for Parramatta **(Mr. Stewart),** Perth **(Mr. Nairn),** and North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes),** promptly criticized it adversely. The measure was immediately reconsidered by Cabinet, and certain proposed amendments were then announced. Honorable members opposite who do not usually look beyond the confines of Australia have been considering what is done in Great Britain. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** claims that the British Broadcasting Corporation is allowed to include advertising in its programmes. Surely he is aware that there are no B class stations in Great Britain. I was hopeful that something in the nature of the control exercised in Great Britain would be adopted here, and I opposed the bill as originally brought down, although I welcomed it as an advance on the measure brought down by the previous Government. As a listener I object to advertising being sandwiched in between classical musical items. I wish the A class stations - with which we are dealing at the present moment - to give the best entertainment possible without including advertisements. Surely a licence-fee of 24s. demands the best of programmes; but hitherto the B class stations have been providing a better service than the A class stations, and the privately controlled 3UZ station in Melbourne, in my opinion, gives even a better musical programme than any A class or other B class station. It is true that it mostly broadcasts gramophone records, but they are of a high standard. This bill is an attempt to improve the existing control of broadcasting, and I regret that when an effort is being made to prevent A class station programmes from being interspersed with advertisements, honorable members opposite should claim that it is being done because of newspaper pressure. No listener, I am sure, would approve of such interference with programmes broadcast by A class stations. {: #debate-24-s11 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Minister for Trade and Customs · UAP -- Honorable members opposite are endeavouring to show that the amendment is being submitted by the" Postmaster-General at the dictation of a section of the press of this country. It is true that some of the newspapers objected to the clause in its original form, but what really influenced the Government was the attitude of honorable members of all parties. The honorable members for Balaclava **(Mr. White),** North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes),** New England **(Mr. Thompson),** and Parramatta **(Mr. Stewart)** - to mention some of them - and a number of honorable members in direct opposition all opposed the clause as originally introduced. Nothing could be more preposterous or misleading than the attempt of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** to prove that the amendment was actually written for the PostmasterGeneral by the Brisbane *Courier.* The circular forwarded by the Brisbane *Courier* to the honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Baker)** bears the date of the 31st March, whereas our amendments were circulated on the 17th March, exactly a fortnight earlier. What has happened is perfectly clear. The Brisbane *Courier,* being concerned with the possibility that the amendment might not be accepted, issued this circular to honorable members urging them to support the amendment, and I take it that the honorable member for Oxley will accept the advice tendered to him. As a member of the Government, I have not the least objection to the amendment, because it was never intended that money should be made through broadcasting advertisements. Whether these things are termed " sponsored programmes " or defined as they are in the bill, matters not. The position to-day is precisely what it was when the bill was first introduced. Ministers never intended that the A class stations should compete with the B class stations for advertising. We do not intend that now. It is laid down in the bill that the commission shall not engage in advertising, but if those words are not qualified in some way, programmes supplied by theatres or operatic companies might be held to be an indirect form of adver- rising for the people providing them. It is well, therefore, to set out in the bill in detail what the commission may accept in the way of programmes, and that was all that was ever intended by the Government when the bill was first introduced. {: #debate-24-s12 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh .- The clause as originally drafted jeopardized the profits of private interests, and they showed their teeth in such a way as to compel the Government to introduce this amendment. Prior to the circulation of it, a section of the press took concerted action to influence honorable members and the public. A large newspaper combine, at the head of which is the Melbourne *Herald,* is making a determined effort to usurp the rights and powers of Parliament. Apparently, it is the ambition of **-Mr. Keith** Murdoch to become the Northcliffe or Beaverbrook of Australia, and dictate public policy. The amendment now- before the committee was circulated on the 17th March. On the 16th March **Mr. Lloyd** Dumas, managing editor of the Adelaide *Advertiser* and 5AD Broadcasting Station, visited Canberra, and 1 challenge the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Gullett)** to deny that his visit related to the Broadcasting Bill, particularly the clause now under consideration. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- -That may have been so ; but what does that establish? {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- I am showing the influence that was brought to bear on the Ministry to compel it to amend this clause. The Government intended to proceed with the bill as drafted by the Scullin Ministry, but changed its mind only after the visit of **Mr. Dumas.** The loud guffaw of the Minister for Trade and Customs confirms my statement. This characteristic mannerism, which he display3 when subjected to criticism which he cannot answer, deceives nobody but himself. Yielding to the influence of vested interests, the Ministry resolved to sacrifice the rights of the people by depriving the national broadcasting stations of the right to accept sponsored programmes. The denials by ministerial members will be unavailing when the true history of this amendment is disclosed, [f ever undue influence was directed against a Ministry and private members, cm it was when vested interests interfered in connexion with this measure to dictate public policy, regardless of the welfare of the community. {: .speaker-JVZ} ##### Mr M Cameron: -- That is absolutely wrong. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- It is correct. Will the honorable member rise to deny it? {: #debate-24-s13 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney .- The honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green)** interjected a few moments ago that no objection to sponsored programmes had been made by any of the critics of the bill in this House, prior to the circulation of the amendment now before us. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- I denied the statement of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr Gullett)** that objection had been made by members of the official Opposition. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr HUGHES: -- So far as I am aware, ministries do not customarily take very serious notice of criticism by members of the Opposition, but the Government of which the t honorable member for Kalgoorlie was a member took very serious notice of criticism by its own supporters, and so do all governments. Honorable members opposite have declared that this amendment has been introduced at the dictation of the press. If I can show that it is a direct result of criticism by ministerial members, that charge fails. On the 10th March, when speaking on the motion for the second reading of the bill, I dealt with the provision relating to sponsored programmes, in terms that did not meet with special favour from the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Fenton).** My remarks are reported in *Hansard,* volume 133, page 961. Equally pregnant criticism by other honorable members on this side of the chamber followed. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie said that the demand for amendments caused fluttering in the ministerial dovecot, and that the Postmaster-General threatened to resign. If any trouble arose, it was caused by ministerial members expressing freely their opinions on a measure submitted for their consideration in this chamber. Freedom of speech is something to which honorable members opposite are not accustomed. Whilst no doubt newspapershave great powers, a Ministry is more likely to pay regard to the views of the majority of its followers than to any criticism in organs of the press. After all, the Government lives by virtue of the support of honorable members on this side, and that there was general dissatisfaction with this bill- is undeniable. Admittedly, the measure was drafted by the last Administration; no wonder honorable members of the Opposition rise in defence of their offspring. Ministers of the present Cabinet have to deal with many important and urgent matters, and circumstances compelled them to accept a measure that was ready to their hands and present it to this chamber; but when keen and intelligent criticism was focussed upon it _ by ministerial supporters, Ministers realized that they had fallen into a grievous error; they decided to make the changeling more presentable, and in its improved form we are supporting it. Question - That the amendment (Mr. Fenton's) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.) AYES: 34 NOES: 13 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. {: #debate-24-s14 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- I move - >That the words " sponsored programmes accompanied by acknowledgments to the persons by whom they were madeavailable," sub-clause 2, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - " (a) any announcement of its own future programmes ; > >) a programme supplied by any organi- zation, firm or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical or theatrical production or in educational pursuits ; or > >a programme supplied by any organization, firm or person, provided the programme is not, in the opinion of the commission, being used as an advertisement." {: #debate-24-s15 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .-I should like the Minister **(Mr. Fenton)** to explain why this amendment has been moved. We have not yet been told why the measure, as first approved by Cabinet, has been so drastically altered. Surely honorable members are entitled to some explanation. I am concerned with the welfare of the national broadcasting stations of Australia, which should have the right to broadcast sponsored programmes. Why should this class of work now be left entirely to B class stations? Is it because the Government has been approached by vested interests? Those controlling B class stations have asked the Government to impose the same restrictions as are embodied in the licences issued to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I cannot recall an occasion on which a Minister in charge of a bill has refused to explain an important amendment. It is difficult to understand why the Minister should now be supporting a totally different policy to that which he advocated when this measure first came before the House for consideration. {: #debate-24-s16 .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- Does the Minister intend to give some reasons for the deletion of the words " sponsored programmes accompanied by acknowledgments to the persons by whom they were made available," and the insertion of certain other words? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- I gave the reasons when the committee re-assembled after the di nner adjournment. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- In the original measure provision was made for the broadcasting of sponsored programmes by A class stations, but the proposed commission, which is to cost the country a large sum of money, is now to be prevented from allowing such programmes to be broadcast. If the commission is to control broadcasting, why should such restrictions be imposed? The right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** said that the measure as originally introduced was drafted by the Government of which the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Green)** was a member, and that this Government had really been too busy to give it proper consideration before it was introduced into this chamber by the present PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Fenton).** The Government is now endeavouring to amend it to meet the wishes of certain outside interests. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr Stewart: -- We are. trying to wash its face. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- If that is so, the face-washing should be done at less expense to the people of Australia. Apparently this Government gives little attention to the legislation which it introduces. The honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** said that he did not know what the bill contained until it was brought before the House; but when the whips were cracked he immediately fell in behind the Government. To-day certain honorable members opposite crossed the chamber in an endeavour to keep the promises they made to the electors that if returned there would be no interference with private enterprise. We have been told that private interests should be given every opportunity to get this country out of its difficulties. Paragraphs *b* and *c* of the amendment -read - " (b) a programme supplied by any organisation, firm or person engaged in artistic, literary, musical or theatrical production or in educational pursuits ; or {: type="a" start="c"} 0. a programme supplied by any organization, firm or person, provided the programme is not, in the opinion of the commission, being used as an advertisement." There are not many firms in Australia which can afford to give sponsored programmes unless they obtain some advantage by way of an advertisement. Honorable members opposite who profess to be endeavouring to remove broadcasting from political control are now restricting the powers of the commission. The honorable member for Balaclava stated that the members of his party were not consulted before the bill was introduced, and that the Minister in charge of it was the only person who had any knowledge of its contents. Was the responsibility of piloting it through the House placed upon the Postmaster-General, because as an exmember of the Labour party, he believes in a policy of nationalization? Apparently the measure met with the approval of the Government until the representative of the Melbourne *Herald,* the Adelaide *Advertiser* and Brisbane *Courier* interviewed the Minister. The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin)** said that certain representations were made on behalf of the principal newspapers in this country. I asked the Prime Minister at the time, whether the interview that he had with the chairman of the Associated Press had resulted in the dropping of the bill, and the Prime Minister replied that there was no intention of dropping the bill. He side-stepped the issue. Nevertheless the provisions of the bill relating to advertisements are being altered in accordance with the suggestions of the Melbourne *Herald* and the Adelaide *Advertiser.* Those newspapers acted in the interests of private enterprise with a view to the destruction of nationalization. The attitude of the Associated Press is in keeping with the policy of the supporters of the Government. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The honorable member put his question to the Prime Minister some days after criticism had been levelled at the bill by members on this side of the chamber. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- -The bill was introduced on the 10th March. The next day was private members' day and we discussed tobacco duties.We met again on the 16th March, as was stated by the righthonorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** after the bill had been, dropped. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The right honorable member for North Sydney spoke on the 12th and 13th March. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- It does not matter when the right honorable member for North Sydney or the honorable member himself spoke. Their policy is directly opposed to nationalization. The policy of the Melbourne *Herald* and the Adelaide *Advertiser* is to bring about the destruction of nationalization. Those newspapers used their influence to limit the scope of the National Broadcasting Commission, because both of them are operating B class stations. For that reason the supporters of the Government received telegrams instructing them to object to A class stations having anything at all to do with sponsored programmes. The Government should give the commission a free hand. If it is to be composed of business men, the broadcasting service will, no doubt, be used for educational purposes. It will not enter into violent competition with B class stations. The bill does not state to what extent the service must be used for educational purposes, but the power of the commission in regard to programmes is to be restricted under the amendment. This clause is far better as it stands. {: .speaker-JOS} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell: -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-24-s17 .speaker-JTB} ##### Mr MCNICOLL:
Werriwa .- I support the amendment, although in some respects it is not quite clear, having, in my opinion, been badly drafted. In a provision of this kind the principle should be stated briefly. There is a danger in specifying instances as in paragraphs *a, b* and *c* of the amendment. Something may, in the future, arise which is not included in those paragraphs, and, because of that it will be excluded from the operations of the commission. It is quite, conceivable that programmes submitted under paragraph *b* would really be in the nature of advertisements, and, therefore, conflict with the earlier part of the provision. I suggest to the Minister that the requirements of the Government and its supporters would be met if clause 22 were confined simply to the statement that the commission shall not broadcast advertisements. {: #debate-24-s18 .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE:
Barton .- Honorable, members opposite have quoted vari ous dates, and so arranged them as to support their statement that some outside interested parties have influenced honorable members on this side of the chamber in their attitude to this measure. I. am rather surprised at some honorable members opposite lending themselves to such doubtful tactics. As I have said before, the sincerity of some individuals and some parties in this chamber is to be questioned. This measure was introduced on the 10 th March, and was subsequently discussed by the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes),** the honorable member for Parramatta **(Mr. Stewart)** and the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White).** Following their lead th.-j associated press immediately took the opportunity to criticize the bill. Honorable members opposite have been almost dishonest in their interpretation of certain dates. We on this side of the chamber are against nationalization. We fought that issue at the election. The policy of nationalization is identified throughout this country with corruption on the part of those who support it. Every government that has sponsored nationalization has been corrupt. For instance, we have only to look to Queensland in which State the great ex-chief of the Labour party dragged the policy of nationalization and government control in the gutter. We have a similar example in New South Wales. Nearly every aspect of nationalization has been eliminated from this bill, and we on this side of the chamber are entitled to fight to the last ditch in obliterating any remnants of nationalization or government control. We have declared our policy in every State and upon every platform. Apart altogether from the action of the Associated Press in criticizing the bill we are prepared to stand by that policy. On the 10th March the party to which I belong dealt with the bill and decided to reconstruct it. The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin)** has discovered that a certain gentleman was in the precincts of Parliament House on the 14th March. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- I said the 16th March. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- That makes the position worse. The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** has alleged that a communication dated the 30th March lias been embodied in this bill. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead honorable members. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The honorable member knows that the B class stations have influenced the members of his party. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr LANE: -- The honorable member, like a rabbit, runs from one burrow to another. When 0ne argument fails, he uses another. He now attacks the B class stations. His action is typical of the men who fought us in the last election; men who never fight square. I have been taken to task by the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** for not having previously spoken on this measure, but I refrained from speaking because the criticism of honorable members opposite was not worth answering. We regret the absence of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Scullin),** who probably would have contributed something worth while to the debate. I say without fear of contradiction that the dates that have been quoted, and the subject-matter that has been supplied, are misleading. Those honorable members who have not taken part m the debate have rendered a service to the country by ignoring the arguments that have been advanced by honorable members opposite. {: #debate-24-s19 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- With all due respect to the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane),** one simple question is at issue: Either the Government submitted its amendments to the Associated Press, or vice versa. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- I say that it is so. With the exception of one word in the amendment to clause 18, the two sets are identical. I believe that the Associated Press and the B class stations are responsible for what has taken place. The letter from which I and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** quoted tonight was written on the 31st March last ; but we are told in it that prior to that date a letter similar in its terms went forward to the Minister. Its date is not stated, but it was certainly despatched before that which honorable members have received. The fact remains that one set of amendments is the exact replica of the other ; that is to say, the amendments that have now been accepted by this Minister who, formerly because of his opposi tion to them, threatened to resign from the Cabinet, and took a week-end to make up his mind whether he would continue in or vacate office, have been suggested by somebody outside of this Parliament. The honorable gentleman now asks us to agree to them without furnishing any information in support of their acceptance. With all due deference to * any other opinion that may be held, the statement of the position by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin)** is the correct one. The honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane)** says that we are wrong in that assumption, but does not show wherein we err. The honorable member for Hindmarsh knew these people who came to Canberra, so he had no need to ask who they were; and he is not in the habit of making statements that are not truthful or that cannot be verified. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- The Minister did not deny my assertions. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- There was no need to deny them, because they did not prove anything. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- The honorable member did not prove anything. All that he did was to utter a lot of abusive rubbish about honorable members on this side going from one burrow to another. Doubtless he is a good judge of that sort of thing. I challenge the Minister to state exactly why he has adopted his present attitude. I know on what grounds he justified the introduction of the bill, but I cannot understand why he asked the committee to accept this amendment without 'saying one word, good, bad, or indifferent, in regard to it. All that he does is to remain silent while other honorable members say that certain things happened, on certain days. {: #debate-24-s20 .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr STACEY:
Adelaide .- It is my intention to support the amendment. Honorable members opposite are quite wrong when they assume that, in deciding upon the amendments that should be made to the bill, either the rank and file of the Government party or the Minister himself was influenced by the press. I was one of those who approached the Minister and asked for certain amendments to be made. The bill was considered clause by clause, which clearly proves that honorable members on this side were not satisfied with it. I agree that, as originally drafted, it permitted too much ministerial control I was forced to that conclusion by something that happened during the regime of the Scullin Government, when broadcasting was under ministerial control. A meeting convened by the Citizens League in Adelaide could not be broadcast because of the ban placed upon it by the Postmaster-General. I know not why, but probably because he considered that statements were likely to be made concerning him or his Government. It was that occurrence which led me to ask that the bill be discussed by the party Before it was proceeded with further in this chamber. {: #debate-24-s21 .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Cameron)** has said that the amendments proposed by the Minister were dealt with and published by the Government before the arrival from Adelaide of **Mr. Dumas.** The honorable member was rather unfair in the challenge that he issued to the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin),** because the date which appears on the second publication of the amendments is the 28th April, 1932. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr STEWART: -- That is three days prior to the date of the letter that has been read. - {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- We are dealing now, not with that letter, but with the statement of the honorable member for Hindmarsh. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr Stewart: -- Which we are denying. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- The date on the first print of the amendments is the 17th March, 1932, which was the day after the visit of **Mr. Dumas** took place. You, **Mr. Temporary Chairman (Mr. White),** and other honorable members claim to have criticized the bill. Everybody agrees with your criticism. But can you point to any amendment that was moved by either yourself or any other member of the Nationalist party prior to the arrival in Canberra of **Mr. Dumas?** I cannot remember any amendment having been moved. There has been an extraordinary shifting of ground by those who challenge the truth of the statement of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, and who allege that those who sit on this side have dealt loosely with dates. In the first place they affirm that these amendments were decided upon prior to the arrival of **Mr. Dumas.** Now, how ever, they say that it was prior to the arrival of the letter from the Brisbane *Courier.* That may be quite true; but it was after **Mr. Dumas'** arrival. The date of the letter written by the Brisbane *Courier* would be only two or three days subsequent to the publication of the amendments, which were drafted in accordance with instructions issued to members of the Nationalist party by **Mr. Dumas** on behalf of the associated press. It is clear from the amendments that have been distributed among honorable members that the Nationalist party accepted dictation from outside bodies. One has to admire the courage of the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane).** He will try anything once. He has succeeded in getting away with a few statements because he is a new member. That stage has now passed and the time has arrived for us to make him stick a little more closely to facts. On a former occasion the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Cameron)** allowed the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** " to reply on his behalf. I hope that on this occasion he will " check up " on his dates and try to put right the right honorable member for North Sydney, who I know would not wilfully make a mis-statement concerning the honorable member for Hindmarsh. I feel sure that the honorable member for Barker will now agree that these amendments were drafted after the arrival of **Mr. Dumas** and his friend from Adelaide. {: #debate-24-s22 .speaker-JVZ} ##### Mr CAMERON:
Barker .- The honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** has been at some pains to satisfy himself about the date when, the party which sits on this side dealt with the amendments to this bill. I am not in- the least concerned about dates. But I am concerned about his statement, and that of the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin),** that **Mr. Dumas** came to Canberra for the purpose of influencing members of our party to act in a certain way in regard to this bill. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- The Postmaster-General will not deny it. {: .speaker-JVZ} ##### Mr CAMERON: -- That is not my concern. I am perfectly well aware of **Mr. Dumas'** visit to Canberra; but days before his arrival the party of which I am a member had decided what was to happen to the bill. Therefore I say quite definitely that the honorable member for Hindmarsh and the honorable member for Kennedy are entirely wrong in their Statements concerning the influence which they assert this gentleman exercised. As *a* matter of fact, I doubt very much if 2 per cent, of the members of the Government party met **Mr. Dumas** or knew that he was here. It is useless for honorable members to try to show, by the manipulation of dates, that **Mr. Dumas** was responsible in any way for the action that is now being taken or that was taken after the matter was discussed by this party. It is futile to continue that line of argument ; it will prove nothing if it is persisted in all night. I am entirely opposed to the socialization of any form of industry. {: #debate-24-s23 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 .- I hope that the Minister will furnish honorable members with an explanation of the amendment. He should make it clear why the bill has been altered in this way, and in what respect the amendment is supposed to be au improvement. The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Gibson),** who has had more experience as Postmaster-General than any other man since federation, referring the other day to sponsored programmes, said - >Unless steps are taken to control .the activities of B class stations, it would be possible for one of them to secure for, say, £3,000, the exclusive right to broadcast a test cricket match between English and Australian elevens, and the A class stations could not then broadcast a word about it except as a news item. This is not a question of socialization or nationalization. We have already agreed that broadcasting should be under national control, just as we have agreed that posts and telegraphs should be under national control. Whether or not people, as a general rule, accept the principle of socialization, practically every one is agreed that the post office, for instance, is too great an enterprise, and too intimately associated with the public welfare, to be under private control. That being so, why should we seek to draw back now in regard to the national control of broadcasting under the plea that we are opposed to socialization? If the Post- master-General presses his amendment, broadcasting in this country is doomed to take a second place as compared with broadcasting in such countries as Great Britain, Germany and New Zealand, where the system, from which the Government now seeks to depart, is in operation. We have tried to follow the principles laid down by the British Broadcasting Corporation up to the present, and we should follow them in this. {: #debate-24-s24 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh .- Ii is amusing to observe the bewilderment of honorable members opposite who seek to explain away facts which are supported by documents, in themselves more eloquent than honorable members could possibly be. This amendment was printed and introduced into this House on the 17th March, the day after **Mr. Dumas,** the managing editor of the Adelaide *Advertiser* and Associated Newspapers was here in Canberra. That gentleman did not come to Canberra on an idle mission ; his time is too valuable to the interests he represents for him to visit Canberra merely on a health trip. He came here with a deliberate purpose, and the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Cameron)** will convince nobody by his explanation. He cannot explain away the date on the document to which I have referred, more particularly when we observe that the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Fenton)** himself does not deny what I have said. I ask the Postmaster-General to explain to honorable members, with that courtesy which is characteristic of him, why the amendment has been introduced, and why the Government has abandoned a vital principle of the bill as originally introduced. The honorable member for Parramatta **(Mr. Stewart)** said that the Opposition would get its explanation from the division list. We, however, are entitled to something more than that, and I am sure that the honorable member himself when, in the perhaps not distant future, he is sitting in Opposition, will be one of the first to demand a full explanation of everything which he does not clearly understand. It is probably all very well for honorable members opposite to say that there is no need for further explanation, because these matters have been explained to them at their party meetings; hut we on this side of the House are entitled to know what is in the mind of the Government. The honorable member for Barker expressed Iris determined opposition to anything that savoured of socialization or nationalization. His objection seems somewhat absurd when we recall that the whole purpose of this bil] is to provide for the national control of broadcasting. Evidently the honorable member does not understand the legislation with which he is dealing. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Mr Stewart: -- It merely provides for departmental control of a departmental function. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- The fact remains that this legislation does provide for national control of this utility. {: #debate-24-s25 .speaker-JUD} ##### Mr DEIN:
Lang .-Although adequate reasons have been advanced in support of these amendments, much time has been occupied . unnecessarily in their discussion. The bill was introduced in the ordinary way, and, following the criticism by honorable members, whose collective wisdom, I take it, is greater than that of the Cabinet itself, the amendments now before the committee were brought down by the Minister.- This procedure, I submit, is evidence of the true democratic^ spirit of this Government. Honorable members opposite have suggested that political pressure has been brought to bear on the Government and its supporters. My answer to them is that if in my judgment a clause- is right, I shall support it; if it is not, I shall vote against it. That is the motive which actuates me, and, I believe, all of the members of my party. I was not aware of **Mr. Dumas'** visit to Canberra until I heard of it to-night. Perhaps, as a member of the rank and file, it was not considered necessary to consult me; but obviously this proves that there is no foundation for the allegations of honorable members opposite. Much time has already been wasted in the discussion of these amendments. One honorable member opposite has spoken thirteen times. On twelve occasions his speeches have been a reiteration of statements previously made. Believing that this amendment will improve the bill, and is necessary, I intend to support it. {: #debate-24-s26 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin),** and the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** appear to be under the impression that they have made an important discovery, which has given evident pleasure to the former. Lest what they have said should give rise to any misunderstanding, it is desirable that their statements should be corrected at once. Their " discovery " is that these amendments were brought in on the 17th March, and they are endeavouring to establish some connexion between the visit of **Mr. Dumas** to Canberra and the introduction of these amendments, whereas the facts are that the House went into recess on the 17th March to allow honorable members to take part in the celebrations connected with the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. No member of the Ministerial party had seen the bill prior to its introduction; but following the Minister's second-reading speech, it was heavily criticized, and, as a result, these amendments were drafted some days later. {: .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr Holman: -- The honorable member himself referred to the advertising aspect of broadcasting. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- That is so. Evidently the honorable member for Hindmarsh was not listening, and now is under the impression that these amendments were not suggested at that early stage. I am sorry that so much time has been wasted over these amendments, and I regret that honorable- members opposite should impute improper motives to the Government and its supporters. {: #debate-24-s27 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE:
Boothby .- Honorable members opposite in their attitude towards these amendments are endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill. I say deliberately that their sole purpose is to make political capital out of the Government's proposals. What does it matter if **Mr. Dumas** did pay a visit to Canberra. He may have been here on a holiday. The question is, is this amendment right? {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- Will the honorable member deny that he was here ? {: .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE: -- I believe he was. He did not discuss broadcasting with me ; but he may have spoken to the honorable member for Hindmarsh. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- He did not. {: .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE: -- It is time we divided on this amendment. I, therefore, move - That the question be now put. Question - That the question be now put - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.) AYES: 32 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Woes . . . . . . 14 Majority' . . . . 18 Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question - That the amendment (Mr. Fenton's) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.) AYES: 33 NOES: 13 Majority . . 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to Question - That the clause, as amended, be agreed' to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman- Mr. Bell.) AYES: 33 NOES: 13 Majority . . .. 20 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 23- >The commission may collect, in such manner as it thinks fit, news and information relating to current events in any part of the world, and may establish and subscribe to news agencies. {: #debate-24-s28 .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr HOLMAN:
Martin .- This clause authorizes the commission to collect news and information relating to current events, and, presumably in order to do that, it is authorized to establish and subscribe to news agencies. It does not, however, authorize the commission to disseminate the information and news so collected. I imagine that it is the intention of the Government that the commission may, if it thinks fit, not only collect news and information, but also distribute it. If that is the intention, it would be as well to say so in this clause. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- That is the intention. The clause is practically a copy of the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation. If it is not sufficiently clear, an amendment can be made in another place. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- The commission being a broadcasting commission would collect news and information only for the purpose of broadcasting it. {: .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr HOLMAN: -- The commission has other functions. It may, for instance, publish a periodical, and it may be urged that this clause merely authorizes it to collect news and information for use in connexion with the publication. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Why would the commission subscribe to news agencies, excepting to distribute the news and information collected from them? {: .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr HOLMAN: -- The committee would be wise to make it perfectly clear that the news and information, when collected, shall be available to the commission for distributing by means of broadcasting. {: .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes: -- Clause 16, which sets ont the functions of the commission, provides that it shall undertake the provision and rendition of adequate and comprehensive programmes for broadcasting. In order that it may carry out those functions, clause 23 authorizes it to do certain things. {: .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr HOLMAN: -- In order to make the position perfectly clear, I move - >That after the word " collect " the words " and distribute " be inserted. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Why not " and broadcast"? {: .speaker-KHO} ##### Mr HOLMAN: -- My amendment would make it possible for the commission to distribute it in any way it chose. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to. Clause 27 (Australasian Broadcasting Commission Fund). {: #debate-24-s29 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- In my second-reading speech I made a request that licences should be issued free to blind persons. This' subject was also mentioned by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin).** Is the PostmasterGeneral prepared to accede to this request ? {: #debate-24-s30 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- Earnest consideration is being given to that subject. The Government has the power to make provision for that to be done apart altogether from this bill. {: #debate-24-s31 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- Sub-clause 2 of this clause provides that for the year commencing on the 1st July, 1932, the portion of fees received from each broadcast listener's licence-fee by the commission shall be 12s. in respect of each fee and that - >This amount shall bc continued to be paid in each subsequent year unless some other amount is fixed by the Minister. It appears to me that this is the only place in this bill where we may insert a provision which will ensure that the listeners will receive some advantage if this new scheme of control is successful. Presumably it is contemplated that a reduction in the amount paid to the commission from licence-fees may be possible. If that is so, the listeners should receive the advantage of it. For this reason I move - >That the following words be added to subclause 2: - " and "in the event of the Minister reducing this amount, the fees charged to the licence-holder shall bo reduced to this extent". Honorable members will surely agree that if a reduction is made in the amount payable to the commission a similar reduction should be made in the licence-fee. {: #debate-24-s32 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- I hope that the honorable member will not press this amendment to a vote. The amount of 12s. payable to the commission may be varied by either increase or decrease. Honorable members know that 12s. of the fee of 24s. goes to other sources than the commission, and we are hopeful that a reduction may he made in certain of those payments. I assure the honorable member that both the Government and I, as the responsible Minister, will study the interests of the listeners in every respect. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 28 agreed to. Clause 29 - >Moneys held in the fund, uninvested by the commission, may be lodged either in an account at call or on fixed deposit, or partly in an account at call and partly in an account at fixed deposit, with the Commonwealth Bank or with any other bank as the Treasurer directs, and while in such bank shall be held to be moneys of the Crown. {: #debate-24-s33 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports .- I move- >That the words " or with any other bank as the Treasurer directs " be omitted. We should be patriotic to at least one big national institution, and provide that the banking business of the commission shall be done with the Commonwealth Bank. Before this year is out we shall probably find it necessary to use the agency of the Commonwealth Bank to a greater extent than ever before. In spite of what has been said in this House on different occasions the Commonwealth Bank is rendering a great national service, and we should put in its way all the business that we can. {: #debate-24-s34 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- I hope the Postmaster-General will agree to this amendment. The Commonwealth Bank was established years ago by enactment of this Parliament, and we should support it. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 30 and 31- agreed to. Clause 32 (Audit). {: #debate-24-s35 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- This clause provides that the accounts of the commission shall be subject to inspection and audit at least once yearly by the Auditor-General of the Commonwealth, and the Auditor-General shall report to the Minister the result of each inspection and audit. But it seems to me that the Auditor-General will audit only 12s. of the listeners' licence-fee. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- That is not so. The Auditor-General's report will cover the whole ground. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Do I take it that the whole of the 24s. will be audited? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Yes. All Commonwealth funds are audited by him. Clause agreed to. Clause 33- >The commission shall, as soon as possible after the expiration of each financial year, prepare a profit and loss statement and balance-sheet in the form approved by the Minister . . . {: #debate-24-s36 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- I move - >That the words " approved by the Minister " be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word " prescribed ". I want to throw upon the Government and not upon the commission the responsibility for the form in which the commission's balance-sheet is presented. If the amendment is agreed to the Government will prescribe by regulation the form of the balance-sheet of the commission, and if Parliament is dissatisfied it can express its disapproval. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- I accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 34 agreed to. Clause 35 - >The income, property and operations of the commission shall not be subject to any rates, taxes or charges under any law of the Commonwealth or a State to which the Commonwealth is not subject. {: #debate-24-s37 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .-I move - >That after the word " charges " the words " other than those of a local authority " be inserted. Like the Electricity Commission in Victoria, the Broadcasting Commission may occupy premises in cities for which they will require municipal services. Such property should not be subject to State taxation, but the local authorities should be able tocollect rates upon it, particularly when the commission is earning revenue in competition with private enterprise. {: #debate-24-s38 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- In opposition to the views of many honorable members of this party the Broadcasting Commission is to be allowed to engage in certain lines of business which may include the manufacture and sale of wire- less apparatus or electrical equipment. The commission will not be subject to sales tax, and will, therefore, have an advantage of 6 per cent, over its competitors in regard to importations or articles acquired in the local market. As I regard this as grossly unfair, I shall move an amendment to remove this anomaly. {: #debate-24-s39 .speaker-KHL} ##### Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports -- At the first glance it would appear that municipalities are likely to suffer if the Government erects workshops on valuable city land, but I cannot see how we can single out the broadcasting commission for special treatment in this case when all Commonwealth enterprises are exempt from municipal taxation. I am opposed to the suggestion ..of the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White).** It would be ridiculous for a federal department to tax itself. This is a people's concern, and the people are supposed to get the advantage of it. {: #debate-24-s40 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- I understand that some of the broadcasting stations are on government property upon which municipal taxation is not imposed, and as it is possible that in due course the broadcasting commission will take over these premises an anomaly would be created if they immediately became subject to municipal rating. It is not logical to subject national broadcasting stations to municipal taxation, unless all Commonwealth property is subject to the same taxation. {: #debate-24-s41 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- Many broadcasting stations ave on Commonwealth property. One of the latest to be erected in a country centre is entirely on Commonwealth property. The proposals of the honorable members for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** and Balaclava **(Mr. White)** would, if adopted, lead to complications. {: #debate-24-s42 .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr GREGORY:
Swan .- I did not hope to have my amend.ment carried, but I was anxious to draw attention to the fact that the Government, which has been telling the people how desirous it is of building up private enterprise, has passed a clause in this bill to enable the broadcasting commission, with the consent of the Minister, to embark upon all sorts of subsidiary enterprises. In doing so, it can. import its goods or manufacture itsarticles for sale free of all rates, taxes, or charges. I congratulate the Government- Amendment negatived. {: #debate-24-s43 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Balaclava .- I move - - That after the word " charges " the words- except sales tax " bc inserted. I have already explained the purpose of this amendment. I did not support tho proposal of the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory),** because the imposition of municipal taxation on one Commonwealth activity would necessitate ite imposition upon all, but the sales tax is a new tax relating definitely to business activities. The broadcasting commission may manufacture equipment, and offer it for sale with a 6 per cent, advantage over private importers or manufacturers Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 36 to 54 agreed to. {: #debate-24-s44 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted: - " 53a. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to diminish or affect the rights of any person under any contract or agreement made prior to the commencement of this act to which the Commonwealth is a party." I have received legal advice that the bill may affect some current contracts between the Government and another painty, and as the violation or diminution of any existing contract .is not desired, the amendment is proposed to remove all ground for apprehension. {: #debate-24-s45 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- The explanation by the Minister is nol satisfactory. What are the contracts which may be affected ? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Contracts' between the Government and Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- In connexion with an earlier amendment relating to sponsored programmes the Minister refused, to tell the committee the reason for his change of attitude. I do not forget the strong propaganda against this bill conducted by certain newspapers. For instance, the MelbourneHerald of the 11th March severely castigated the Minister in relation to the bill. It said - >Rub it Out and Start Again. > > **Mr. Fenton's** bill to make broadcasting a branch of the Postal Department is a brazen falsification of government pledges that have hardly ceased to echo. In the first place, this great public utility, with its power for good or evil, is to be entrusted again -to a department whose incapacitymade legislation necessary. That criticism is nonsensical, and it emanated from a newspaper that controls the station 3DB, and has a controlling interest in other B class stations in Adelaide, Wangaratta, and Gippsland. Having regard to the pressure brought to bear on the Minister in connexion with other amendments, I want a full explanation of the reason for the proposed new clause. Does it refer to the rights of B class stations, and will it commit future governments? {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- No. {: #debate-24-s46 .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- The Minister has not adequatelyexplained to what contracts the new clause refers. The Opposition is entitled to consideration. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Surely the honorable member is not in favour of violating any contract. {: #debate-24-s47 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .-I also want to know . the nature of the contracts affected, their duration, and the effect which this new clause may have upon future governments. The Minister did not adequately explain a previous amendment relating to sponsored programmes, doubtless because he could not do so without admitting that, it had been dictated by certain vested interests. {: #debate-24-s48 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh .- Members of the Opposition have been very considerate to the PostmasterGeneral during the passage of this bill through committee, and are at least en titled to the courtesy of an explanation of the proposed new clause. Ministerial supporters may have prior knowledge of the clause and understand its import, but members of the Opposition are not so happily situated. I ask the Postmaster-General to allay our fears that behind this amendment is something that may be inimical to the best interests of the people. {: #debate-24-s49 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- Apparently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** did not choose to hear my interjection that the contracts referred to are those between the Government and Amalgamated "Wireless (Australasia) Limited. No party desires to violate an existing contract, but legal opinion having been received that the provisions of the bill might do so, the new clause is proposed to safeguard all existing rights. There is no ulterior motive behind this proposal. Proposed new clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments. Motion (by **Mr. Fenton)** agreed to - >That the bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 13. *In committee* (Recommittal) : Clause 13- >A commissioner shall he deemed to have vacated his office - > >if his appointment is terminated by the Governor-General in pursuance of this act; > >if he becomes bankrupt or compounds with his creditors or makes any assignment of his salary fur their benefit or takes advantage of any provision of any act relating to bankruptcy; > >if he becomes of unsound mind: or > >if he resigns his office by writing under his hand addressed to theGovernorGeneral and the resignation is accepted by the GovernorGeneral. {: #debate-24-s50 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- I move - >That the following words be added to the clause: - "or > >if he absents himself, except on leave granted by the Governor-General, from all meetings of the commission held during two consecutive months." Ithas been suggested by honorable members on both sides of the chamber that if a commissioner absents himself from duty for any considerable period he should be penalized. In another portion of the bill, provision is made for dealing with commissioners who do not devote sufficient time to the work. This amendment is merely to amplify what has already been done. {: #debate-24-s51 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- I brought this matter under the notice of the committee when this clause was previously under consideration, and I am rather disappointed that the amendment does not provide what I feel sure the majority of the committee desire. The amendment in its present form provides that if a commissioner attends one meeting during two consecutive months, he will not be liable to any penalty. If the chairman should attend only one meeting during two consecutive months, he will be entitled to draw at the rate of £83 per sitting, the second commissioner £66, and the third commissioner £50. It ha? been suggested that proper care will be exercised in selecting the commission, but as we cannot look into the future, we do not know whether the persons to be appointed will devote sufficient time to the responsible duties devolving upon them. In any case, they are to be paid fairly high salaries for a part-time job, and the only way to define a part-time task is by laying down some restrictions that will keep them up to the mark. Greater restrictions should be imposed upon them than to compel them to attend only one meeting every two months. I move - >That the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after "himself" with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words " for three consecutive meetings." As these men are to be engaged for a period of years, we should safeguard the interests of the Government and of the taxpayers by restricting them more than is proposed under the amendment moved by the Minister. I agree that he has done his best to provide that some control shall be exercised over them, but they should not be allowed to draw such high salaries if they attend only one meeting every two months. Question - That the amendment of the amendment be' agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - MR. Bell.) AYES: 19 NOES: 24 Majority . . . . 5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment of the amendment negatived. Original amendment agreed to. Clause also verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with further amendments; reports - *by leave* - adopted. {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
PostmasterGeneral · Maribyrnong · UAP -- *by leave* - 1 move - >That the bill be now read a third time. I thank honorable members for the assistance they have given me in passing this legislation, and I hope that it will be of great benefit to the people of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjournedat 11.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 May 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1932/19320503_reps_13_134/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant