House of Representatives
3 July 1946

17^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- COTTON
QUESTION
- TOBACCO
CIVIL AVIATION
- National Service to Albury, Wagga and Holbrook
QUESTION
- POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS
QUESTION
- PAPUA
QUESTION
- MEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL BENEFITS
QUESTION
- ATOMIC ENERGY
KEW SOUTH WALES. BY-ELECTION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIA-NETHERLANDS RELATIONS
QUESTION
- OATS
QUESTION
- RE-ESTABLISHMENT
QUESTION
- TUBERCULOSIS
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
QUESTION
- APPLES AND PEARS
QUESTION
- ALUMINIUM
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- RABBIT SKINS
QUESTION
- IRON AND STEEL
QUESTION
- WOOLLEN TEXTILES
QUESTION
- MEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE SERVICES
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENTS OF AIR AND CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- WHEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- GERMAN REPARATIONS
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- COURTS-MARTIAL
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- DAIRYING INDUSTRY
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
ASSENT TO BILLS
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
- Precedence
MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1946;
- Second Reading
MEAT INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL 1946
- Second Reading
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1946
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
- Shipping : Passenger, Service from Great Britain
- Department of Information
- Aircraft Production : Beaufort Division
- Tuberculosis
TRACTORS
- Agricultural Machinery Pools
- Government Vegetable Farms
- Motor Vehicles: American Jeeps
- Import Licences

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J.S. Rosevear) tookthe chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.

page 2093

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr HADLEY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs in a position to make a statement upon thedecision of the Government in regard to Commonwealth assistance to the cotton-growing industry in Queensland after the expiration of existing legislation?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– by leave- The future of the cotton-growing industry in Queensland has been the subject of an investigation by the Tariff Board, the report of which body has been received by the Minister for Trade and Customs and very carefully considered not only by him but also by the expert officers in his department who usually deal with assistance to this industry. Further, it was the subject of an agendum that was placed before Cabinet yesterday.

The Raw Cotton Bounty Act will expire on the 31st December, 1946. The Commonwealth Government has decided to submit legislation during the present sittings of the Commonwealth Parliament for the purpose of extending the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1940-1941, so that producers will be guaranteed a net return of 15d. per lb. for raw cotton above the grade known as “ strict good ordinary “, produced in Australia during the calendar year1947 and during each year until the 31st December, 1951. Such guaranteed net return will be computed after taking into account the net return from the by-products of raw cotton. Raw cotton of “ strict good ordinary “ or lower grades will continue to receive bounty at one-half the appropriate rate tinder the existing Raw Cotton Bounty Act. This is in accordance with what was sought by the Queensland Government and the Queensland Cotton Board when the existing legislation was being framed. The total sum available for the payment of the bounty will be £170,000 per annum, and any portion of it unexpended in any year will be available for bountypayments in later years,in addition to the £170,000 provided f or each of such years, making a total of £850,000 for the fiveyear period.

The bounty has been extended, subject to the Queensland Government using every endeavour to implement certain under takings that were given during 1939-40. These were, that it would take energetic steps to improve the efficiency of cotton-growing by arranging for, first, the quickest possible conversion of cotton production from dry-farming toirrigation by the most economic means for each selected locality, secondly, the inauguration of a special campaign to ensure the adoption by cotton-growers of the best cultural methods; and, thirdly, the acceleration of scientific work on plant breeding, soil tests, measures to combat insect pests, and plant diseases, and the new problems that are likely to be encountered with production under irrigation. The objectives covered by these undertakings were designed to create the utmost efficiency in the industry, with a corresponding reduction of production costs by improving the quality and the yield per acre of the cotton grown.

page 2093

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Rationing - Confiscated Cigarettes

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have been told by several ex-servicemen that they have been allotted a tobacco quota by retail distributors but, because they moved to another district some miles away, they are unable to get tobacco there, and have to rely on supplies from the original retailer. Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs say whether it is a fact that the administration of the National Security (Tobacco Rationing) Regulations, underwhich exservice personnel are granted a tobacco ration, passed from his department to the New SouthWales Tobacco Trade Distribution Committee on the 1st April? Is it not a fact that these regulations state that ex-service personnel may change their retailer when they move to another district, but that the committee has refused to observe this provision? If these are facts, will the Minister state under what authority this provision has been ignored, and why ex-service personnel transferred to another district for business reasons are not allowed to change their tobacconist ?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Government rationing of tobacco was abolished, I think, on the 1st April last, but I do not know the wording of the regulations which had been in force up to that date. There had been many complaints that government rationing was an unjustifiable interference with the tobacco trade and was, indeed, responsible for . the current shortage of tobacco and inequitable distribution. Now the controls have been lifted. The honorable member himself urged that this should be done at the earliest possible date, leaving the trade to look after its own business about which, he said, it knew more than did the Government. I shall look into the complaint that certain ex-servicemen are not receiving a fair quota of tobacco under the present system, and shall prepare a reply for the honorable member.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Several weeks ago, the Customs authorities in Brisbane attempted to dispose of millions of confiscated cigarette’s, but owing to the enormous demand and the rush of intending buyers the sale had to be stopped. Since then, some of the cigarettes have deteriorated, and have been destroyed. Will the Minister representing the’ Minister for Trade arid Customs see that a proportion of the cigarettes is made available to the services, and that the remainder is disposed of through ordinary trade channels?

Mr FORDE:

– I shall confer with the Minister for Trade and Customs, and the honorable’ member’s* suggestions will be taken into consideration.

page 2094

CIVIL AVIATION

National Service to Albury, Wagga and Holbrook

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the announcement that pilots are being trained for service with the National Airlines Commission, which seems to indicate that the commission plans to begin the operation of services, will the Minister for Civil Aviation impress upon the commission the desirability of including

Albury, Wagga and Holbrook in any plans for new services between capital cities ?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall consider the claims of Albury, Wagga and Holbrook. An investigation will be made to see that proper services are given to places which are now without them.

page 2094

QUESTION

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– by leave - In one of the Sunday newspapers issued on the 30th June a half-page advertisement appears headed, “ Hints and Note’s for Liberal Party Speakers “. The document takes the form of alleged reproduction of page- 2 of roneoed speakers’ notes marked “ Confidential “, . and it appears over an application to the public under the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and the Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt). I am raising the matter by way of statement, because I cannot believe that the Prime Minister was aware of this advertisement. The advertisement, which purports to be a copy of a page of Speakers’ Notes for the Liberal party, is <a fraudulent document. It is not a copy of any page of any Liberal party speakers’ notes. I shall quote two passages to indicate its character. There is a cross-heading “ Points to Remember “,. beneath which appears -

Remember that the war-time records of Curtin and Chifley Government cannot be assailed.

Government Members. - Hear, hear!_

Mr MENZIES:

– Do not say “ Hear, hear ! “ too soon. I recognize the hand of the author. We need not be told who he is.- Then -

Achievements too great and apparent for credible criticism.

Avoid attempts to infer the nation lacks confidence in Labour Government’s financial policy. (Overwhelming response to Government’s’ Loan appeals contradicts such inference.) “

So it goes on: I very much regret to hear honorable gentlemen opposite say “ Hear, hear ! “, because this is, without any exception, the most fraudulent advertisement that has ever been put before the Australian people. In point of fact, my, attention has been drawn to the fact that it is not only fraudulent but also a breach of the law, because the Crimes Act of New South Wales provides

Mr Calwell:

– Ha, ha!

Mr MENZIES:

– The ‘Minister may laugh at the Crimes Act when he is in Parliament. The act says -

Any person who tenders for insertion or causes to be inserted in any newspaper anybogus advertisement, knowing the same to be bogus, shall, on conviction before two Justices, be liable to imprisonment for three months or to pay a fine of Twenty pounds.

I am not directing my remarks in particular to anybody but the Prime Minister, because this is a fraudulent document ; it is a grossly dishonest document intended to deceive the Australian people. There can be no doubt that it is intended to deceive the Australian people and that it is hoped that it will deceive a great number of them. At the foot of the advertisement there is this statement -

The Australian Labour party seeks your support in making known the truth concerning the Government’s aims and achievements. Donations may be addressed to the Campaign Trustees (J. B. Chifley or H. V. Evatt, M’s.P.), Commonwealth Offices Sydney.

This House is entitled, whatever the views of Ministers may be on this matter, to an explicit statement by the Prime Minister, as one of the sponsors of the advertisement, that the document in the advertisement which purports to be a copy of a real document is in fact a document composed by. the Government or the Labour party and is in no sense an extract from any document published by the party which I lead. -

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– by leave- I do not deny some knowledge of the advertisement referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). I cannot say that I examined all the prospective advertisements closely. I did know that amongst the advertisements that were to be published were some of the character mentioned. I must confess that I had not at any time thought that an advertisement containing political propaganda would stir the breast of any person as apparently this particular advertisement has stirred the Leader of the Opposition. This advertisement is addressed to the intelligent section of the community, and people who read it will have no difficulty in realizing its nature and purpose. In my opinion, this political propaganda, is much fairer, if the word “ fair “ can be applied to any political propaganda, than many of the statements that have been made about the Government from time -to time in this House and outside of it.

Mr Menzies:

– But the right honorable gentleman does agree that what purports to be a copy of a sheet of directions to speakers is not a copy of the Liberal party’s Speakers’ Notes?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– There are certain aspects-

Mr Menzies:

– The Prime Minister does agree with that?

Mr Calwell:

– Do not be squeamish.

Mr Menzies:

– If I were squeamish, 1 would not stay in the same Parliament as the Minister for Information.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Leader of the Opposition commented on one feature of the advertisement, which I had not studied very closely, but I shall examine it. I am surprised - I nearly said agreeably surprised - that such an advertisement should cause so much feeling.

page 2095

QUESTION

PAPUA

Erection or Native Village at Port Moresby.

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for External Territories any further information regarding the newspaper report that the Hanuabada natives do not desire the Government to proceed with its plan for the construction of a model native village?

Mr WARD:
Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Immediately my attention was directed to the newspaper report, I communicated with the Administrator and asked him to inquire into the matter. I am pleased to advise the honorable member that I have now received the following reply: -

Have been requested send you following message: - “Minister Ward, Minister of External Territories, Hanuabada people request definitely and happy looking “toward your beginning their village soon. Last night people said some pre-war white people trying spoil our village construction. ‘ People do not want return old fashion government people want new Government to stay. - (Signed) Gavera Ama, chairman, Village Council Rarua Tau, for Hanuabada Village Councillors. “

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Will the money for the construction of the model native village, the estimated cost of which is £118,000, be provided from the War ‘ Damage Insurance Fund or from Consolidated Revenue?

Mr WARD:

– The method by -which the work will be financed has not yet been determined. The Government regards the proposed work as a part of its rehabilitation plans for the territory. Some . criticism which has recently been levelled against this proposal may have led, in my opinion, to a false impression that the construction of this model native village in New Guinea will in some way hamper the programme of home construction in Australia. I assure honorable members that all the materials and all the labour for the native village will be supplied from local sources, and in no way can this project affect the building of houses on the mainland.

page 2096

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Shipments TO UNITED KINGDOM

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Commerce and. Agriculture inform me whether it is a fact, as stated in the Sydney Sun of ‘ the 26th June last, that although an analysis of the meat shipments to the United Kingdom was prepared for the honorable gentleman, a decision against releasing them was made when the meat authorities had examined them? If so, will the Minister inform the House whether the true position regarding these exports has been kept secret because it is realized that the Government cannot honour its obligations to Great Britain in particular, and because the production of meat in Queensland has declined by more than 35,000 tons as the result of strikes? If not, what is the actual position regarding the export of meat to Great Britain?

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The report in the newspapers, on which the right honorable - gentleman based his question, is definitely untrue.

page 2096

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Last week I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services to indicate the position, under the Go vernment’s hospitals benefits scheme, of persons who entered private hospitals which had not applied to become approved hospitals. Has the honorable gentlemanany information for me?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The position is that 84 of the 116 private hospitals in South Australia have been approved under the Government’s ‘hospitals benefit scheme, so 70 per cent, -of them are covered.

Last week the honorable member for Fremantle asked me whether mental hospitals came within the scope of the scheme. I was not able, offhand, to give him a definite reply. But I can now tell him that under the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States which is now being implemented mental asylums aTe not covered.

page 2096

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– Can the Prime Minister say whether it is intended that the whole of the cost of the atomic bomb experiments now being conducted by the Government of the United States of America, are to be borne by that Government, or will governments represented by official observers also be expected -to contribute; alternatively, in view of the recently announced decision of the United States, is the future control of atomic energy development likely to become the responsibility of the- United Nations?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I understand that the whole of the expense associated with the current atomic bomb experiments is being borne by the United States Government. The countries which were invited to send observers to watch the experiments, of which Australia was “one, will bear only the expense associated with the presence of its own observers. On the general subject of the control of atomic energy and the materials used in the manufacture of atomic bombs, a conference has been sitting for some time. The Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) is representing Australia. I am not in the position to say officially what final decisions are likely to be reached, but the general view has been expressed by this Government, and Has been submitted to the conference, that the control of atomic energy should be placed under the- United Nations-. Hawing regard to the dreadful possibilities, of the misuse’ of uranium and other ingredients, ki the production of’ atomic bombs,, and to- the future peace- of the world!,, our belief is that this new discovery should be: developed to produce industrial power and not bombs foi! wa-r purposes. The Minis. lei: for External Affairs is making this clear ak the conference.

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Students o;f Electricity

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– What action docs the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction’ intend to take in regard to the employment of qualified ex-army electrical’ engineers and electricity students who hold certificates but cannot secure employment in their’ calling because of the attitude of industrial unions, especially in view of the published statement of Alderman W. Cook, at a meeting of the Brisbane City Council,, that, ex-servicemen who had studied electricity in the Army have been the victims of a vile and cruel hoax, and- his further statement that, although these men had been told1 through the Army journal Salt that- they would be accepted as- tradesmen, the unions were refusing to accept them as members, and the Brisbane City Council had to turn away such men every week?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I do not accept’ the premises that -individuals who are qualified electricians are unable to obtain employment for any reason. I point out that those who are engaged in the industry mentioned1 are covered’ by the dilution agreement, which was entered into by the Government in which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) was Prime Minister. Without breaking acontract with those concerned, it is impossible freely to admit to training ex-servicemen who wish to enter that industry.

page 2098

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– A report published to-day stated that Cabinet had decided yesterday that £250,000 should be provided by the Commonwealth for distribution among sufferers from tuberculosis, in addition to any other social service benefits to which they may be entitled. As the distribution is to be made by the States, will the Prime Minister say whether they have agreed to give effect to the proposal, or will legislation be needed before the scheme can be implemented ?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The Commonwealth Parliament has approved of the allocation of £250,000 a year among the States to assist in preventing the spread of tuberculosis. The Commonwealth had earlier agreed to provide £50,000 a year for diagnostic treatment, on the condition that the States would subsidize the amount £1 for £1, and a further £50,000 a year for after-cure treatment, on the same basis. It has now agreed to provide a further £250,000 a year to meet the circumstances of necessitous cases, such as the granting of assistance to the dependants of the head of a family suffering from the disease. Due to the nature of the drafting, it was found difficult to administer the provision. This Parliament will be asked to pass amending legislation to make the provision more workable, and to enable the money to be paid to the States on a basis to be determined by the Minister for Health in the light of all the circumstances. The matter has been discussed with State Ministers for Health, but I cannot say that a definite agreement has been reached in regard to the method by which the money shall be distributed. I shall make inquiries in relation to that aspect. The Minister for Health will make any further explanation that may be needed when the amending legislation is introduced.

page 2098

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Position in Queensland.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the fact that further drastic transport restrictions are being imposed in Queensland, and that the people, especially women and children, are suffering privations far more severe than those endured during the worst days of the war, following the failure of the compulsory conference called by the Premier, Mr. Hanlon, with a view to effecting a settlement of the dispute in the meat industry, and the resultant strikes by coal-miners and waterside workers, has the Prime Minister made any offer of assistance towards ending this nationally damaging state of affairs? If not, as many of the strikers are subject to awards of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, will the right honorable gentleman intervene in the dispute immediately?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Last week, in reply to a question, I made it clear that the Government regarded this dispute as one that was entirely within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court of Queensland, and that the handling of it was a matter for the Government of that State. I understand that the Queensland Government, acting in accordance with its constitutional powers, has since declared that a state of emergency exists. The Commonwealth Government considers that the matter should be left with the State Industrial Court and Government.

Mr Francis:

– The right honorable gentleman realizes that they have failed to settle the dispute?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Regretfully, I have to confess that I do realize that up to date they have failed to settle the dispute. According to my information, very few of those associated with the original dispute are subject to awards of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. As to whether I have considered intervention, or whether there have been any negotiations

Mr Francis:

– Or offers of assistance.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Last week, I was asked whether Mr. Tonkin, the Commonwealth Meat Controller, had been in consultation with various parties to the dispute.With the consent of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the Commonwealth Meat Controller used his friendly offices in an attempt to bring about an agreement between the parties, suggesting certain methods by which an agreement might be reached. The Government holds the same view of the. matter as was expressed here last week.

page 2099

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction aware that the announcement that the Commonwealth Government intended to spend £320,000 a year on a national university in Canberra is causing concern among State universities lest this should exclude the possibility of financial assistance to them for research purposes? If so,” can he assure the State universities that Commonwealth assistance for this purpose will be continued?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I was wot aware that anxiety had been caused, but I shall give the matter consideration and advise the honorable member later regarding it.

page 2099

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the future of the Apple and Pear Acquisition scheme? If so will the Minister inform honorable members what has been decided ? If no decision has been reached, when will the Minister be able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– The whole matter is now under consideration, and in due course honorable members will be notified.

page 2099

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr BOWDEN:

– Can the Minister for Munitions say when the report of the com.mis.sion appointed to investigate the proposed establishment of the aluminium industry in Australia will be tabled in Parliament? Will honorable members have an opportunity to debate it?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Aircraft Production · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The report, which will cover the period up to the 30th June last, will probably be presented to me within a few days, when the final tabulation of data is completed. I. shall ‘then table it in the House, and the honorable member may then take what action he chooses in regard to it.

page 2099

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Victorian BoARD - “ montevideo

Maru “ : Pensions tor Dependants of Victims.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation state whether it is a fact that the Government refused to re-appoint Mr. Curnow to the Victorian State Repatriation Board, although he has filled the position with credit for the last four years, and was number one on a panel of names submitted by the Victorian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia? Did the Government refuse to re-appoint Mr. Curnow because his political opinions were different from those held by the Government ? It is to be assumed from this that future appointments by this Government will be made with an eye to the political convictions of the persons concerned ?

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– I assure the honorable member that political opinions were not taken into account in filling this position. At the last federal elections Mr. Curnow opposed the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Dedman), and was defeated. He resigned in order to contest the election, and I re-appointed him afterwards..

Mr Hutchinson:

– Why not on this occasion?

Mr FROST:

– Let the honorable member wait for my answer. A panel of three names was placed before me, and I appointed the man who, in my judgment, was. best fitted for the position.

Mr Hutchinson:

– Was not Mr. Curnow’s name first on the list?

Mr FROST:

– Yes, but why send a list of three names if I was expected to appoint the first ?. I appointed Mr. Gray to the position, and I intend to see that he remains there.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Territories in respect of the approximate 300 New Guinea civilians who were taken prisoner when Rabaul fell and who subsequently lost their lives when the Montevideo Maru was torpedoed whether it is a fact that, when he announced the tragedy, he referred to those who lost their lives as having given them in defence of Australia just as surely as had those who died face to face with the enemy? In view of that statement, is it correct that the benefits of the

Australian Soldiers?RepatriationAct will be applied to the widows and other dependants of those who so lost their lives?

Mr WARD:
ALP

– Action was taken some time ago to provide pension benefits to the dependants of those who lost their lives on. the Montevideo Maru, equivalent to those paid to the dependants of privates in the Australian Army. The question of providing additional benefits under the Repatriation Act is being considered. I shall secure the latest information on the subject and let the honorable gentleman have it within a day or so.

page 2100

QUESTION

RABBIT SKINS

Export Levy

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– An export levy of1s. 6d. perlb. has been imposed on rabbit skins. Has the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture given instructions that buyers shall deduct1s. 6d. per lb. from the price of rabbit skins supplied to them by trappers? Will the Minister make a statement regarding the export levy?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– Never at any time did I give instructions that the purchasers of rabbit skins should deduct the amount of the export levy. The only persons who pay the levy are the exporters. Rabbitskin prices have risen to the world record of 258d. per lb. and, in addition to that, the exporters have to pay a levy of1s. 6d. per lb. Any rabbit-skin buyer who deducted the amount of the levy from the price he paid would be dealing, unfairly with the trapper.

page 2100

QUESTION

IRON AND STEEL

Exports - Shortage of Supplies

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture what quantity of steel ingots, plates, girders, angle iron, &c., has been exported from Australia to the United Kingdom in the last twelve months ?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– I shall have that matter investigated and a reply supplied to the honorable member.

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As the acute shortage of raw materials, particularly black iron and steel, is militating against the development of secondary industries, will the Minister for Post-war Recon- struction ask the Secondary IndustriesCommissionto inquire into the reason, for the shortage?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– It is true that thereis a grave shortage of certain raw materials, particularly iron and steel products, including galvanized iron and black iron. The principal reason for that is the lack of man-power to fillall the jobs which are available in the iron and steel industry, but as more servicemen are demobilized the position will be gradually rectified.

page 2100

QUESTION

WOOLLEN TEXTILES

Tailoring Cloths

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Has the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction seen the statement of the president of the Master Tailors Association, Mr. Keith Parlon, in Monday’s Melbourne Herald, that scarcely any deliveries of tailoring cloths had been made in the past three months and that some tailors had not received a suit-length for six or seven weeks ? If so, in view of the extreme difficulty being experienced by civilians and ex-servicemen in securing a suit of clothes, what action does the Minister intend to take so to regulate exports of cloth that our own people will be able to purchase much needed suits?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– I have not seen the statement, but I remember that the gentleman mentioned by the honorable member made some rash statements early in the war about the need for rationing clothing. The Government exercises no control over the distribution of cloth. That is solely a matter for the manufacturers. As I have explained previously in this House, the quantity of cloth suitable for Australian requirements that is exported is small, amounting to about 2½ per cent. of the total production. The only hope of more cloth being made available to the Australian community, including ex-service men and women, lies in increased production in the mills, and over that the Government has no control.

page 2100

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Pig Meats - Appointment of Inspector . in Victoria.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– On Friday afternoon I referred to the report that the Meat

Controller, who is an officer of the Department of Commerce fend Agriculture, had appointed an inspector to attend pig sales in Victoria iii order to fix pig prices and that this “gentleman’s firm had been a buyer of pigs at the sale attended by him. If the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has not already been drawn to the matter, will he examine it with a view to making an early statement on the case in the House ?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– My attention has not yet been drawn to the matter raised by the honorable gentleman. I shall order an immediate investigation and make a statement to the House as requested

page 2101

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Dame ENID LYONS:

– In view of the vastly differing amounts of telephonic business transacted in post office telephone exchanges, will, the Minister representing the Postmaster-General consider the possibility of grading telephonists, as is the practice with all classes of male postal employees, to ensure that girls called upon to fill the more difficult positions shall be amply compensated for their extra skill?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I shall place the representations of the honorable member before the Postmaster-General, and ask him to furnish a reply as soon as possible.

page 2101

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTS OF AIR AND CIVIL AVIATION

MONTREAL Conference - Statements by Am Vice-Marshal Bostock.

Mr WHITE:

– Will the Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation, whom I welcome back, soon make a state- ment on the Montreal conference from which he returned last week? Will he also soon reply to the charges made by Air Vice-Marshal Bostock?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– I have prepared a report, which 1 supplied to the Prime Minister, on the conference at Montreal. Later I hope to be able to make a statement on what was accomplished there. I have had brought under my notice a series of articles written for the Murdoch chain of newspapers by A;r Vice-Marshal Bostock. The articles appear to have been syndicated. They are published under big head-lines in several newspapers, apparently to enable Air ViceMarshal Bostock to air his personal grievances over a wide area. The articles are lengthy and cover many aspects. I am examining them for the purpose of determining the necessity for a reply and the nature of the reply that I should make if one is necessary.

Mr Anthony:

– There is a necessity all right.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Nobody here other than the honorable member (or Balaclava seems to have shown any interest in the articles.

Mr Fadden:

– I have asked questions about them and so has the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein).

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Well, I apologize to the honorable member for Watson.

page 2101

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Inquiry into Loss of Production.

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Was the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture correctly reported in Tuesday’s press as having said that he would recommend to Cabinet that a commission be set up to ascertain the cost of producing wheat? If so, will the Minister inform the House why he has not before this honoured a similar promise that he made prior to the 1943 general elections that if the Government was returned to power an inquiry would be held into the increased cost .of producing wheat?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– I did make that promise earlier this week, but the statement of the honorable member that I made a similar promise in 1943 is absolutely incorrect.

page 2101

QUESTION

GERMAN REPARATIONS

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Will the Prime Minister inform me whether Australia is entitled to reparations from Germany, and, if so, what is the value of them ? Are reparations to be made in machinery, and, if- so, what kind of machinery?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– Australia is entitled to participate in the reparations paid by Germany, and some time- ago an estimate was made of the value of industrial and other materials that Australia would receive. Later a fresh estimate had to be made. I shall prepare for the honorable member a statement setting out the original estimate and the revised figures.

page 2102

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

page 2102

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without requests -

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1946-47.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1945-46.

Without amendment -

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1946.

page 2102

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the followingbills reported : -

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1946-47.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1945-46.

page 2102

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Mr. CHIFLEY (Macquarie - Prime

Minister and Treasurer) [4.1]. - I move -

That Government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.

As I intimated a few days ago, this motion will not deprive honorable members of “ Grievance Day “.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- This motion, if agreed to, will prevent the House from considering the following notice of motion standing in my name : -

Thatno means test be applied in the matter of pensions to dependent parents of deceased servicemen; and that no means test be applied in considering the eligibility of widows of deceased servicemen for war service homes.

page 2104

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1946;

Bill presented by Mr. Scully, and read n first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

.. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a. second time.

The purpose of this bill, which is designed to amend the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1938, is to provide for the re-v constitution, of the Australian Meat Board, and to grant to the board additional powers necessary to enable it to carry out work in. relation to the longterm purchase agreement covering meat for export, entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. The Australian Meat Board, under the amending legislation now submitted, will consist of twelve members, including a Commonwealth Government representative, who will be appointed by the GovernorGeneral. Bte will be employed full-time on the business of the board and will be the chairman. Of the remaining eleven members, seven members, constituting a clear majority of the board, will be representative of producer interests.

Producer members, comprising four representatives of the lamb and mutton producers, two of the beef producers, and one of the pig producers, must themselves be bona fide producers,, and must be persons nominated by producer organizations constituted on a Commonwealth basis. The members appointed to represent the meat-exporting companies are to be appointed after consultation with representative organizations of meat exporters. The member appointed to represent - the employees will be appointed after consultation with the Federal Council of the Meat Industry Employees Union.. The member appointed to< represent, the publicly owned abattoirs and freezing works will be appointed by the GovernorGeneral.

Producer organizations have repre, seated, that the chairman of the board should be a producer member, nominated by the producer representatives on the board. During the period that the. longterm purchase arrangement for the sale of Australia’s exportable meat to the United Kingdom continues, the board will handle annually Commonwealth Government finance amounting to more than £20,000,000, and in these circumstances the Government considers that it should have the right to appoint the chairman.

The bill also gives the person presiding at a meeting the right to. dissent from, any decision of the hoard. This right is also necessary because of the Commonwealth Government’s financial interest in the operations of the board. It is essential that the chairman shall have the right to bring to the Minister’s notice immediately any resolution which he considers may involve the Commonwealth Government in any way on a point of principle or, what is more to the point, on a question of financial losses or gains. The Commonwealth Government’s financial interests in the meat industry in the immediate future are such that it is considered that these interests should bc safeguarded by a clause such as .that which has been included in this amending legislation.

It will be appreciated that it ia not practicable to have represented on. the board all interests connected with the meat industry, and that it is necessary and desirable that the membership, in terms of numbers, be limited. In order, therefore, that all sections of the industry may be in a. position to present their views on matters affecting the industry, provision has been made for the setting-up of State committees. It will be competent for any duly constituted. State organization representing a section of the meat industry to apply for representation on the State committee.

As it is proposed that the administration of the long-term purchase agreement for meat, entered into between the Commonwealth. Government and the Govern- ment of the- United Kingdom, will be a function of the board after the expiration of the National Security Act,, provision has been madefor the powers of theboard tobe extended to include the following: -

to purchase onbehalf of the Commonwealth Government any meal, meatproduct, or edible offal; (b)to sell onbehalf oftheCommonwealth Government anymeat, meat product, or edible offal ;
to manage and control as necessary, thehandling, storage and shipment of any meat, meat product, oredible offal;
subject to the approval of the Commonwealth Government, to obtain advances fromtheCommon wealth BankunderCommonwealthGovernment guarantee,for usein the purchase of meat forexport and the payment of expenses incurred in connexiontherewith.

Attention is directed to the provision, of special interest to producers, feat the conditions attaching to the issue by the boardof an export licence have been extended to make it obligatoryonthe licensee, where theproducer-owner of suchstock so requests, totreat stock on account of theownerona weight and grade basis. Other amendmentsare of a machinery nature only and are necessary to give effect to the major amendments, to which attentionhas already been directed.

Debate (on motion by Mr.Hutchinson) adjourned.

page 2105

MEAT INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL 1946

Billpresented by Mr. Scully, and read afirst time.

Second Reading

Mr. SCULLY (Gwydir- Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture) [4.16]. - byleave-Imove -

Thatthebill be nowread asecond time.

The purposeof this bill, which is supplementary to theMeat ExportControl Bill 1946, covering the reconstruction of the Australian Meat Board, is to transfer to thatboard the powers and functions at present exercisedby the Controller of Meat Supplies and the MeatCanning Committee under the National Security Regulations. It willbe appreciated that the transfer istobe temporary,and that, with theexpiration of the National

Security Act, this actwill cease tohave the forceof law. Notwithstanding that, ithe interests of theCommonwealthGovvernment and of the meat industry, inso- far as theyrelate to actions taken bythe Controller of MeatSuppliesand the Meat Canning Committee under National Security regulations,must be protected. The hill provides that these rights and obligations shall be assumedby the Aus- tralian Meat Board. Since the rationing of meat and the control of meat prices are matters which, forthetimebeing at least,are closely linkedwith the general control of the meat industry, provision has been made for the temporary appoint- ment to the Australian Meat Board of two additionalmembers, one to represent the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, and one the Director of Rationing. These members will automatically cease to hold office upon the expiration ofthe National Security Act.

Debate (onmotion by Mr.

Hutchinson) adjourned.

page 2105

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumedfrom the 28th June (vide page 2056), on motion by Mr. Calwell -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

.- Ipointedout lastFridaythat the idea thatthe people shouldbe educated to take an interest in the proceedings of the Commonwealth Parliament,by means of broadcastsof those proceedings, was a very good one. But Ialsostated that two fundamental conditions should be imposed: first, thateither the wholeof the proceedings, or none at all, should be broadcast; and secondly, that all the peopleof Australia should have anequal opportunity to listen to the broadcasts Having established those fundamental principles, the next question would be whether thenecessarytechnicalfacilities were available to give effect to them. If they were, the matterof broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament could be debated on its merits. But if there is to be discrimination, either in the selection of thedebates to be broadcast or in the number of listeners, the proposal has quite a different complexion. According to- my information, although the Broadcasting Committee considered that it would be possible to cover practically the whole of the proceedings during the limited number of days on which the Parliament sits, the Government took the contrary view. The bill does not make that provision, but stipulates that there shall be only a partial cover, which in the last analysis will be determined by a committee to be appointed by the two branches of the legislature and may be selective and quite partisan. If it be agreed that on account of the present technical position it is not “possible to cover the whole of the proceedings, at all events- the debates chosen should be such as to permit of the whole of them being broadcast. If that were done, practically all the clauses dealing with the functions of the committee could be deleted. Any infringement of the general principles I have enunciated would at once have an effect on the maintenance of parliamentary privilege, which is possible only if every member of the Parliament has the right fully to express ‘his view. The law has been thus expounded on many occasions by British jurists. At page 108 of May’s Parliamentary Practice this statement is made -

But if a member should publish his speech, his printed statement becomes a separate publication, unconnected with any proceedings in Parliament. This view of the law has been established by two remarkable cases.

It goes on to cite the reports of Lord Abingdon and Mr. Creevey. On the following page this statement is made -

The Lord Chief Justice of England, in a more recent case, further laid it down, that “ if a member publishes his own speech, reflecting upon the character of another person, and omits to publish the rest of the debate, the publication would, not be fair, and so would not be privileged but that a fair and faithful report of the whole debate would not be actionable.

When the bill is in committee, I shall move for the deletion of the provision. for the broadcasting of “ any portion “ of the proceedings, with a view to ensuring that the whole of the proceedings shall be broadcast. It cannot be questioned that the attempt. that is made by clause 14 to render unnecessary the publication of the whole case for and against, contravenes another principle affecting parliamentary privilege which is of long standing in Great Britain.’ May also says -

By the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights it was declared, “ That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament “. But, although by the ancient custom of Parliament, as well as by the law, a member may not be questioned out of Parliament, he is liable to censure and punishment by the House itself, of which he is a member.

The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) intends to try to meet that position. Sir Edward Coke, who for hundreds of years has been, and still is, regarded as an authority on British juris-‘ prudence, laid it down that, although either House of the Parliament may expound the law- of the Parliament and vindicate its own privileges, it is agreed that no new privilege can be created. It seems to me that this bill, by making it possible for a portion of a debate to be published and another portion to be concealed, undoubtedly ‘attempts to establish a new privilege which has not existed up to the present time.

Mr Falstein:

Mr, Falstein interjecting,

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My aim is to maintain the dignity and the privileges of this Parliament. The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein), like a “ snide “ lawyer, tries to raise technicalities. I wish to make certain that the rights of the people of Australia shall be preserved. This House will act very unwisely, in respect of the freedom of this country and its protection, if it impairs in any way the traditions of this Parliament and the British Parliament. If the bill, when passed, establishes a new privilege, by means of which the speeches of only one section of the House may be broadcast, it would be advisable to withdraw all parliamentary, privileges and leave to the courts of the land the decision as to whether or not a member bad outraged the rights of any person outside the Parliament. A matter of privilege can be raised in the Parliament. When I did so on one occasion the only member of the ministerial party who supported me, even though a fundamental principle was involved, was the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), who views such matters in the light of what is proper and just rather than what is partisan. It would be a bad day for every British country if that principle were allowed to fall into desuetude. In such an event, all matter broadcast should be actionable in the same way as non-parliamentary matter. That would make members very much move careful of what they said, and would prevent them from impugning the character of others without justification.

The bill is being considered haphazardly. Its implications are not being debated with any regard to our international relations. In view of our international understandings, and especially our international misunderstandings, we should consider the matter very carefully. While I sat in the British War Cabinet as the representative of Australia the question arose as to whether there should be a broadcast of a speech that was to be made in the Blouse of Commons, by Mr. Churchill upon his return from a meeting with the late President Roosevelt, in which he was to deal exhaustively with the war situation. The British War Cabinet agreed unanimously, the Labour members of it being most emphatic, that such a broadcast would be exceedingly unwise in view of possible repercussions. lt was pointed out that even one interjection during the course of a speech might provoke an unconsidered retort that could imperil relations between nations for generations. We in this country have a White Australia policy’ to which all parties subscribe. It was fought for in Parliament and outside it, and is now accepted by all Australians, but to some neighbouring nations it is a matter of concern. During a-debate on this subject in Parliament, statements could be made which, if broadcast, might lead to serious difficulties with other nations. This is just one instance.

One of the functions of Parliament is to provide an opportunity for honorable members to talk to their constituents, and to show them that the views of the people are being put before Parliament. This applies to Ministers no less than to private members. I cannot see that any good purpose would he served by broadcasting speeches of that kind to the world. For instance, the other day, we were invited to listen to a recording of the proceedings in Parliament, and I heard the Minister for Works and Housing (Mr. Lazzarini) delivering a speech which, from the point of view of his constituents, was a very good one. He was dealing with conditions in the coalmines on the south coast, and some of the proposals he was making have since been put into. effect by the miners. His speech was unexceptionable so far as his- own electorate is concerned or, indeed, so far as the people in other electorates in Australia are concerned, because they understood why he was making it, but it is important that a speech of that kind should not go out to the world as an indication of what Commonwealth Ministers are thinking. The English language is not spoken all over the world, and some of those who might listen to broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings will have but an imperfect knowledge of the language, and so might misunderstand the true import of what was being said. This was brought home to me by a remark made by Philip Snowden after, an international conference in Paris during the depression. He said, “ although we used the same words, I found that we did not mean the same thing”. Every language has idioms of its own with which people speaking other languages are not familiar. I particularly urge .that no short-wave broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings be made unless the greatest care is taken to prevent them from causing international misunderstanding.

The Government . should not proceed immediately with this proposal. The technical processes are not available to give a complete broadcast of proceedings. Furthermore, the question of privilege has not yet been cleared up ; and, finally, the danger of creating international misunderstanding is such that the Government should defer the passage of the bill until it has bad time to consider the matter further.. The bill has already been passed by the .Senate ; but it is evident that the Government has had many second thoughts regarding it, judging by the sheaf of amendments which- havealready been circulated in this House. For all these reasons, I urge that more time betaken to considerthe proposal in all its aspects.

In conclusion, I desire to expressmy regret to the honorablememberfor Watson(Mr.Falstein) for anythingobjectionablewhich I may havesaidofhim in the heat of debate.

Mr.FALSTEIN(Watson)[4.36].Thisbill has been preparedas a direct result of the reportfurnished bythe Standing Committee onBroadcasting. The decision to broadcastthe proceedings of this House and of the Senate in part only wastaken because of technical difficulties.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– There wereno political reasons at all?

Mr.Calwell. -None at all. The Labour party is running this country.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– The statement of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page)that the broadcasting of only a part of the proceedings affects the matter of privilege is quiteerroneous. I may be permitted, as a lawyer, to say to the right honorable member, who is a member of another profession, that I should prefer him to confine his remarks on. technical matters to subjects of which he has some knowledge. In particular, I suggest thathe should refrain from discoursing on matters of law about which, to judge from the citations he has made, he has no knowledge at all.

The honorablemember for Warringah (Mr. Spender)has foreshadowed an amendment that clause 14 of the bill be deleted, and in its place there be substituted anothercause consisting of two sub-clauses. I hope to convince honorable members thatthere isno substance in ‘his amendmentwhich would warrant serious consideration. I hope to show, also,that thepoints raised by the honorable member come strangely from one who, enjoying the absoluteprivilegeof a court of law, made a most unwarranted attack upon the Minister for Information(Mr. Calwell) during the hearing of a case in which the Minister claimed damages for libel against a newspaper for the publication of certain matter which was highly defamatory.

The honorable member’s foreshadowed amendment proposes, in sub-clause 2, that the privilege of honorable members in Parliament shall be considered in rela tiontostatements oftruth, and tostatements ofuntruth; and he says that, in the caseof statements of truth, noaction shall lie.It istrite knowledgethat, in commonlaw,noactionshall lie in respectof a true statement made in the interest of publicbenefit, and, of course, it wouldnaturally followthat any statement made in Parliamentwouldbe made in the interest of publicbenefit. It is obvious,therefore,thattherewas no need for the amendment specifically to give privilege to statements of truth. The honorable member for Warringah must knowthat in England it is a sufficient defence against a charge of libel or slander to , provethat the statement was true and made for the public benefit.It is not necessary to invoice any further defence of privilege.So much for statements of truth. The honorable member then directs attention to untrue statements, which he divides into two classes - statements which are untrue as such, and statements which the person making them knows to be untrue, and the honorable member adds “ and words spoken maliciously “’.

Whilstitmaybe desirable to make some provision regarding privilege in such cases,I pointout that it is proposedthat theproceedingsof Parliament shall be broadcast, notin their entirety, butin part only. Moreover, it ispossiblethat some technical defect might cuta speaker off the air, and that,aftersuch an interruption, hemight be putontheair again without his knowing it. In regard to words spoken in the Parliament,andnot broadcast, no action could lie, becausethe member would enjoy absolute privilege ; yet, ifthe same words were broadcast he might he liable. There will benothing to stop wordsSpoken maliciously andwith a knowledge oftheir falseness,being published in a newspaper, provided the report is a fair and substantial report of words spoken in Parliament. Doesthe honorable member propose to restrictthis privilege inregard to newspapers in the same way as he proposes to restrict it in regard to broadcasting?

Mr Spender:

– The honorable member seems to forget that, in these circumstances, there is only one author of the slander - the person who first spoke the words.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– But responsibility for libel or slander rests, in law, not only upon .the first author, but also upon every person who publishes or republishes it. Whether the honorable member is endeavouring to mislead the House on these matters I am not clear. It is clear, however, that an anomalous situation would be created if. the newspapers were to be allowed to continue publishing defamatory matter, provided their reports were fair and accurate, whilst persons engaged in broadcasting might not, under penalty of the law, broadcast the same matter.

Mr Spender:

– I would deny privilege to any person, inside or outside this House, who maliciously and knowingly utters a defamatory untruth and this should apply to. newspapers as well as to other agencies of publicity. There is a great difference between doing a thing in the course of duty, and doing it maliciously.

Mi-. FALSTEIN.- All I have to say in reply to that statement is that’ this is a political arena. My friend ought to- know that the members of his party are not very careful of what they say inside or outside this House as long as they achieve certain purposes.

Mr Spender:

– I am coming tothat. If the honorable member will refrain from anticipating me I shall bc pleased. I am reading the sub-editorial in full. I do not need any assistancefrom the honorable gentleman. I- am quite capable of putting this matter tothe House without assistance. The subeditorial goes on -

An eminent King’s Council, Mr.. Weston,, slated him severely.

Now the High Court finds Mr. Smith, guiltless.

In another case, which Mr. Smith won, Mr.. Percy Spender, K.C., M.H.B., also took Mr. Smith’s character to bits in a savage way - then handed the brief over to some one else. Where do these eminent Counsel stand when the Courts decide that their attacks on a. man’s character were unsupported by evidence?

This is the gentleman who is proposingto the House that we should adopt a form which tests, first, whether wordsspoken in the House are true, and, secondly, if they are untrue, whether they were spoken with knowledge of their falseness and, thirdly, whether the words were spoken maliciously. The article goes on -

Do’ they hasten to make public amends? No., they are privileged, so Mr. Smith has- to carrythat mud that sticks. *

What is good’ for the goose is good for the gander. I am not in any way endeavouring to suggest that the Daily Telegraph itself has clean hands, because in very recent memory it wrote a highly defamatory editorial about the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) and invited him to test the matter in the High, Court of Australia. It said, indeed,, that if action were brought, it would not plead the defence of privilege.. The paper had substantial sums of money with which to brief counsel and delay the litigation, which is the worst feature of the. matter. It could quite easily have, reached the stage at which the Minister, or any other person in similar circumstances, would have been financially incapable of contesting the action, although it is quite possible, as in the case of Smith, the court would have found that the action was justified.

The honorable gentleman’s amendment is out of line not only with his own party’s purposes but also’ with the accepted parliamentary practice. Whenthe right honorable member for Cowper was quoting some law it was quite evident, of course, that he was not familiar with what he was saying. What I have to. quote is trite to lawyers, but honorable - members will no doubt appreciate having the benefit of authoritative textwriters on these subjects. Showing exactly what the position- is in regard to these matters, in the ninth edition of Salmond on the Law of Torts, at page 419, paragraph 2, Salmond says -

If the defamatory statement can be shown to be true, the defence of privilege is not required; for it is allowable to .publish the truth on all occasions, privileged or not, and from all motives, good or bad. It is only when the statement is false, or cannot be proved to be true, that it is necessary to fall back upon, the plea of privilege, and to prove that the occasion of the publication was such as to exempt the defendant from the consequences of his error.

A very concise statement of the position of members of parliament is given on page 209 of the 14th edition of Pollock on Torts, also an authority -

Privileged Immunity?- - In order that public -duties may be discharged without fear, unqualified protection is given to language used in the exercise of parliamentary and judicial functions. A member of Parliament cannothe lawfully molested outside Parliament by civil action, or otherwise, on account of anything said by him in his place in either House.

On this accurate account of the law the honorable member for Warringah wishes to superimpose some fancy matter which he has the brazenness, having regard to his record, to put forward. Sub-clause 1 of the foreshadowed amendment proposes that the limitations on action ought to be confined to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its servants, agents and employees for broadcasting or rebroadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. The bill itself provides -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, -shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

An amendment circulated by the Minister provides that power to determine’ what portions of the. proceedings shall be broadcast or re-broadcast shall repose in the hands of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, provision for the setting up qf which is made in earlier clauses. It would, therefore, be quite in order, according to the bill, as it is proposed to be amended, for that committee to decide that some other authority than the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its servants, agent and employees, should be able to broadcast the proceedings of ‘ either House. If it were considered desirable to broadcast through station 2KY,

Sydney, which- is a station conducted under the auspices of the- Wireless Committee of the Sydney Trades and Labour Council, a portion or the whole of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister or some other Minister on matters affecting Labour policy, there should be no bar to the committee making n decision that station 2KY, which is not in the national network, should be permitted to make that broadcast. I suggest, therefore, that the clause be adopted in the form, proposed in the bill, because it would cater adequately for contingencies such as T have outlined.

I commend the bill to the House and say to Opposition members, who claim that they do not oppose change and that they are endeavouring to assist change) that this is one of the most progressive measures ever proposed to be put . on the statutebook of this country, because it will give to the people the opportunity of learning at first hand, without abridgment or interpretative comment, how their representatives conduct themselves and how they advance individual and national interests. That is why, instead of being delayed, the bill should be passed forthwith in order that the proceedings of the Parliament may be broadcast to the people of Australia at the earliest posrsible time.

Mr GUY:
Wilmot

.- I am not enamoured of the provisions of this bill. Indeed, I feel most unhappy about its implications. Any measure that does not provide for the whole of the proceedings to he broadcast cannot be satisfactory. As far as I am aware, the only parliament in the British Empire whose proceedings are broadcast is the Parliament of New Zealand. The proceedings of the House of Representatives of that Dominion have been broadcast in full since. 1936. Indeed, for six hours every sitting day the proceedings are broadcast. That is approximately 24 . hours a week, which covers all the proceedings. Broadcasting times are varied to suit the sitting times. The system has given general satisfaction, although many people have ceased to listen to the broadcast. “When the novelty of listening to the parliamentary debates passed the number of listeners dropped considerably. The proceedings in the Legislative Council of New Zealand are not broadcast. I realize the difficulty of broadcasting both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament at the same time. That would involve the use of additional stations and considerable extra expense. It is for technicians to advise in this regard, and it has been suggested that perhaps the proceedings in one House could be recorded and broadcast at some other time. That would probably enable the proceedings in both Houses to be broadcast. Despite the assertions of the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein), the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting recommended unanimously the broadcasting of the whole of the proceedings of the Parliament. The report stated -

We suggest that provision be made for overall control to be vested in the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as regards broadcasts from their respective chambers; that during the experimental periods the whole of the proceedings in the chamber concerned should be broadcast from the main national stations and from the regional stations, as well as from the short-wave stations, except during the short periods when “straight” news sessions (that is, excluding commentaries or observers’ stories) are normally on the air.

That language is unequivocal, and if the honorable member for Watson cannot understand it, he should obtain a legal opinion with which to fortify his mind. There was a minority report, which suggested that overall control should not rest with the President of the. Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but that is not germane to this debate; The important fact is that the Parliamentary Committee, after having heard evidence and having deliberated for a considerable time, recommended the broadcasting of the whole of the proceedings. The broadcasting of a portion of the proceedings would definitely be at variance with the committee’s report. The attitude of the committee itself, which I endorse, is that all or none of the proceedings should be broadcast. As the Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) pointed out last week, a most unsatisfactory position will arise if only a part of the debate is put on the air. For example, one honorable member may attack another while the proceedings are being broadcast. The person so attacked may have a most effective reply to the charges, but when he rises to defend himself, the broadcasting of the debate may have ceased. Justice demands a fair and impartial presentation of the debates to the whole of the people, and that will not be achieved by broadcasting of portion of the proceedings. “ Jockeying “ for position, rushes to speak while the cham-‘ ber is on the air, and a dearth of speakers when the broadcast is not taking place will be experienced. That will bring about a most undesirable state of affairs.

Clause 14 causes me grave concern. It provides -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) discussed the dangers of this clause in a most informative manner. Every one agrees that in this chamber honorable members should have the right to express their views without fear of incurring legal proceedings, and the protection which is afforded to their remarks is quite satisfactory. But citizens also require protection from slanderous attacks made in this House. Clause 14 gives to honorable members absolute licence to make- false and malicious statements, and defame citizens, who- will have no redress. That licence, if taken advantage of, would bring the Parliament into disrepute; no one would have respect for the parliamentary institution. The granting of licence to slander is quite unnecessary. The wording of the clause means that any person - that expression in itself^ is very wide- can take a small paragraph from an honorable member’s speech, divorce it from the context, and broadcast’ it, for the purpose of creating in the minds- of the listeners a- misleading and untrue impression, but he would be immune from proceedings, for libel..

Mr Calwell:

– That is not a fact

Mr GUY:

– When the Minister, for Information (Mr. Calwell)’ replies to the debate-, he will have ‘an opportunity to collect me. Does he pit his opinion against that: of the’ former SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth, Sir George Knowles?-

Mr Calwell:

– I might even db’ that.

Mr GUY:

– Not with- successful results. Giving evidence before the Parliamentary Committee on this subject^ the then Solicitor-General said -

If the whole of the proceedings, not small selected portions, were broadcast, a qualified privilege would apply. This qualified privilege could only be upset by proof of malice, and. .it would be difficult to establish malice if the whole of the proceedings were broadcast.

The former Solicitor-General definitely advocated the broadcasting of the whole of the proceedings. To-day, a qualified privilege exists, and that should suffice. Clause 14 is unnecessary.

Apart from a few exceptions, this unqualified privilege, which honorable members enjoy to-day, has not been abused ; but I cannot and will not support its extension into a licence to slander people. The proposal that under certain conditions the privilege shall be extended to the re-broadcasting of any of the proceedings of the Parliament will merely aggravate the danger. Approval for the re-broadcasting of a slander on a person will be established, and the. victim will have ,no redress. The proposal for re-broadcasting speeches envisages that a record of the parliamentary proceedings will be cut. A week, a month, or even a year after the speech was delivered in this- chamber-, asn unscrupulous personcould divorce some of the honorable member’s words from their context, and rebroadcast them without fear of legal proceedings- for libel.

Mr Calwell:

– That is not true.

Mr GUY:

– The Minister will have an opportunity later to- refute. my statements-.

Some difficulty” has arisen regarding the land-lines necessary: to make it possible for persons in. all parts of Australia to listen to broadcasts of the proceedings of this Parliament’,. and unless this problem, is adjusted, only New South Wales and Victoria, will get satisfactory reception. Other States may not get any reception, or have an. inferior reception. The Minister should assure honorable - members1 that the whole of the people of Australia will be> given an opportunity to listen- to the debates of this- Parliament.

As’ the right honorable, m ember for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) pointed out, the Seventeenth Parliament of the Commonwealth, will shortly cease to exist. Even if. the Senate and the. House of Representatives agree to the bill at this stage, the proceedings of both chambers can be broadcast for only a fortnight or three weeks-. The Parliament then will rise,, and honorable members will prepare for the election. In my opinion, honorable members should allow the Eighteenth Parliament to implement, if it so desires, this legislation.. Meanwhile, radio technicians will have- an opportunity’ to perfect transmission, to all parts of Australia, and the Government’s legal officers may re-examine this obnoxious clause 14. If this clause is permitted to stand, in its present form,. I shall vote against the bill.

Mr SHEEHY:
Boothby

.- I support the bill, and welcome this proposal to broadcast proceedings of the Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) and other legal practitioners in this chamber gave honorable members most informative addresses on the possible legal consequences of broadcasting the debates. They also expressed grave concern that only a portion of the proceedings would be on the air. It is true that the ideal would be the broadcasting of the whole of the proceedings, but the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) has already explained the reasons why that is impracticable at this juncture. If my speeches are not broadcast, my position will be no worse, regarding publicity, than- it is to-day. Some time ago, I delivered in- this chamber acarefully prepared speech on housings and! three honorable members opposite complimented me upon it. But the South Australian newspapers’ did not even mention that I had participated in. the debate. Whether or not that .omission was intentional, I do .npt know. Most honorable .members have .their own ideas upon that subject. Later, I secured the ad(journment of the debate on the War Service Homes Bill. Seven or eight. days later, when the House again considered the bill, I submitted in my speech a. number of valuable and practical suggestions for accelerating the construction of war service homes.

Mr Anthony:

– -Did the Government adopt the honorable member’s suggestions?

Mr SHEEHY:

– The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) was one of those . who praised my speech. Although 1 resumed the debate, the press reports made it appear that ‘the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison.) had done so. ‘Once again, my speech was not reported in- the newspapers. ‘Consequently, the fact that only a portion pf the proceedings of this Parliament will he broadcast does not .perturb me. Perhaps I shall be ‘fortunate enough, on occasions, to s.peak when this chamber is on ‘the air, and my con.stituents as a whole will -be .able to hear me.

One objection that has .been taken to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament is ‘that it will lower -the public’s a-esp.ect for the parliamentary institution. During the last -few weeks, press cartoonists .have -not ‘show.n much respect for this ‘Parliament. Indeed, they have held it up .to ridicule. In Australia public .men, .and (politicians in particular^, seem ito be fair game for .everybody.-; but it should he remembered that honorable members .appear .in this .House not by the mere act of walking into it but .by-election us representatives for definite electoral divisions. It is high .time, therefore, in my view, for more .respect to be paid to parliamentary representatives. I do not know whether it will -be my -fortune to have many of my speeches broadcast.; but, as one who -mixes f reely with the .electors, I am quite convinced that ‘broadcasting facilities -should -be provided to enable the general public to hear what is being said in this Parliament. From inquiries that have been made, of .me, -I am sure that the number of ‘listeners >will increase as the years .go by, I shall support the bill wholeheartedly.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader pf the Australian ‘Country party · Darling Downs=

-It. seems to be idle to debate, .at this stage, the merits and -demerits of this bill, for the. Government, consistent with its usual methods, has already incurred great expense .and made all provisions for initiating the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings; Having behind it the decision of caucus, and a clear majority of members in this chamber, the Government (has .npt seen fit to wait for parliamentary .approval before incurring substantial expense in preparatory -work. W.e have, in fact, been presented .with -.an accomplished fact. This bill -was initiated in the Senate, where certain amendments were made to it, but sinGe .it has come before this House numerous other amendments have been foreshadowed, in the hope rather than the conviction as far as the members of the Australian Country .party .are .concerned, that they will .have reasonable consideration by the Government. I understand that already an .expenditure of about £10,00!0 has: been incurred in preparatory .work, without troubling1 about the need for .parliamentary appr.ov.al. This procedure, unfortunately, is in accordance with the pattern that legislation has followed since this Government .has been in office, although it was unknown previously, It was quite improper for the Government to anticipate parliamentary approval in this way, particularly as an urgent need exists for the provision pf technical apparatus qf this description for other purposes. The Government should have given some consideration to more urgent needs of the community. We all recognize that broadcasting is desira’ble, and that the application of it to parliamentary proceedings is in accordance with present-.day movements for the adoption of scientific methods. Procedures acceptable in years gone by ‘have become outmoded to-day. Broadcasting is a scientific method of communication which should be applied to parliamentary proceedings in order that the people may be enabled to inform themselves in an up-to-date way of the doings of their elected representatives. But the incurring of an expenditure of thousands of pounds, and the use of large quantities of technical equipment for this purpose, which could have been applied to the provision of new country telephone services or to increasing the efficiency cf established services, would have been far preferable, at least until legislative authority had been, obtained for the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. At this period of our history the Government should have been devoting all the resources at its disposal to the promotion, of ways of increasing the productivity of the country and improving our economic conditions. I am informed that an expenditure of £50,000 will be necessary to provide even the partial parliamentary broadcasts which the Government1 envisages.

I believe in a policy of “ first things first “. The crying need of Australia to-day is a reduction of governmental expenditure as the forerunner to a reduction of taxation. A reduction of taxation would stimulate production. With an increase of production revenue from taxation would increase even if the rates of tax were reduced, as they should be. I disapprove of the proposed expenditure of £50,000 on a partial broadcast of parliamentary proceedings at a time when country people find it impossible to obtain telephones because of the lack of cable and technical equipment. No doubt a great deal of the material that has been used for the broadcasting installations that are being made in this building would have been suitable for the installation of tele-, phone services. The installations here will serve mainly city dwellers or those in the more developed parts of the Commonwealth. Each capital city already has two national stations, and regional stations have been established in various parts of the country. For this reason people in these areas will reap the maximum benefit from the parliamentary broadcasts, but those living in the outlying areas, who should be given improved amenities, will reap no benefit whatever from these broadcasts. I received a letter yesterday from a resident of Clifton- Shire complaining of the lack of telephones. I was asked to support requests made for additional telephone services on behalf of twenty to 25 farmers residing in the shire, at various distances from the township. In some cases deposits had been paid for over six months, but the hold-up was said to be due entirely to the lack of technical equipment.

In the electorate of .the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), which is by no means remotely situated in relation to some parts of the Commonwealth, the people cannot obtain any satisfactory service from existing regional stations, and very few people in the electorate of the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) reap any advantage from them. I have .been informed that it is not the intention of the Government to broadcast parliamentary proceedings through Dalby, where one’ of the most powerful regional stations in Australia was constructed by the previous Government in order to give an improved broadcasting coverage to people residing in Western Queensland and central South Australia.

Mr Calwell:

– The right honorable gentleman has been misinformed.

Mr FADDEN:

– The honorable member for Maranoa told me that he had made inquiries on this subject from the appropriate authority and had been informed that the Dalby station will not be used. I regard that as scandalous.

An honorable member has interjected that I have somersaulted on this subject. I have not done so. I informed the Broadcasting Committee that I believed in the broadcasting of parliamentary debates, but I did not consider that the’ system should be instituted for the benefit of city dwellers, at the expense of the country people, nor did I consider that partial, indefinite, and incomplete broadcasts would be satisfactory. I am favorable to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings in accordance with the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee. In order that honorable members may be clear as to my views on the subject I shall read the evidence that I gave before the committee. I said -

I agree that it is desirable that the debates of the Parliament should be broadcast. I have given some thought to the matter, and realize that there are debits as well as credits.

On the debit side, there would be the tendency to stifle debate. I say that from my experience as the leader of a party. Even to-day in order to obtain publicity, some members are not prepared to speak at a certain hour of the night, but prefer to postpone their contribution to the debate to the following day, when they can be reported by the press. In recent times, we have had the experience of debates collapsing long before they rightfully should because some members were not prepared to proceed as the setting was not favorable to the gaining of publicity. That position would lie aggravated by the broadcasting of debates, because only a limited number of hours would bo favorable to the gaining of publicity and everybody would not be able to speak during that period. On the credit side, the broadcasting of debates would induce members to engage in greater research and to pay more attention to the composition of their speeches. These would not be so spontaneous as are speeches made from a few notes. Nevertheless that is a very desirable aspect. On the other, hand, broadcasting of debates would probably prevent members from. making certain charges which to-day are made under privilege. They are informed by correspondence that certain things are going on, and in all conscientiousness put forward those views ,on the motion for the adjournment of the House. If they were to be subjected to an effective reply by n Minister fully informed of the facts, that practice would probably break down. Senator McKenna referred to the broadcasting of questions. Those who have sat in opposition know that very often a question is more effective than a speech from the “ parish pump “ point of view in an electorate. It is easy to obtain a reply from the secretary to a Minister, but from a political point of view that is not always desirable because the member must let his informant know that he is pressing the matter in the House. Questions without notice probably could be broadcast,- but what about a question upon notice? A member places on the notice-paper a question relating to a matter that is probably of national importance, with respect to which he genuinely desires to obtain information, and the reply is furnished at a much later date. The mechanics of the matter rather condemn the practicability of the proposal. The experience in New Zealand has been cited. As Mr. Speaker has said, the conditions in New Zealand are entirely different from those in Australia. In the first place, that dominion does not differentiate between national and regional stations. I approach the matter from the standpoint of the Australian Country party. In ail the capital cities there are two national stations. What would be the position of the people in the country, who have to depend on regional stations, if debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives were broadcast simultaneously? Has anythought been given to the difference in times between the eastern States and Western Australia V How would that be overcome? I believe Mr. Speaker stated that more legislation would be initiated in the Senate, in order to overcome the objection that that chamber does not deal with the matter when it is fresh. The most important debates we have had in recent months have been those on the banking bills. These were originated in the House of Representatives and were debated for days, almost every member participating. Who would listen to a broadcast of a debate on them when they went to the Senate ? Then we have the budget, the basis of the whole of our constitutional authority. Obviously, it must be initiated in the House of Representatives. It is debated for days, mid eventually finds its way to the Senate. Who would listen to a repetition in the Senate of all that had been said in the House of Representatives. Those are pertinent considerations in determining the desirability or otherwise of broadcasting parliamentary debates. It must be realized that, of necessity, most of our legislation must first pass through the House of Representatives, because the Senate is a house of review. There are only a few measures which could be initiated in the Senate with a view to obviating the repetition there of what had been said in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker’s political experience and knowledge of Standing Orders are much greater than mine, but I am sure that he will agree with me that there are only few measures which could be fresh news in the Senate. Could the proceedings of the Parliament be broadcast by the -Australian Broadcasting Commission with its existing facilities? It would be all right for the city-dweller, who has two national stations, but the countryside is entirely dependent on the regional stations. Licence-holders might listen for a while to political debates broadcast over regional stations, but would they consider it more important than listening to entertainment? The amenities of people who live in the country are few. How many additional stations would bc needed to give a complete cover to both Houses continuously during the sittings of the Parliament? Whatever stations might be used, there would be a period of overloading and a period of unemployment, because the Parliament does not sit continuously throughout the year. Because of exceptional circumstances it has sat since February of this year. If stations are to be specially erected in order to overcome difficulties during peak periods, when both Houses are sitting and a full cover is needed, what will be the cost of the unemployment of those stations while the Parliament is not sitting? Whilst agreeing that it is desirable to have Parliamentary debates broadcast, I am not so enthusiastic in regard to the practicability of the proposal, having regard particularly to the cost. I should be opposed to fixation of the order of debates; in that respect I agree entirely with Mr. Speaker. If that suggestion were adopted, constituted authority would bc infringed; because, as Mr. Speaker has said in no uncertain terms, in his eyes every member has an equal right to the call . whatever may be his oratorical qualifications or his ability to handle the subject. That right has to bc preserved unimpaired. I also agree with Mr. Speaker that if you were to pick out the “ high lights “, or choose the man best qualified to discuss them, you would break down the democratic feature of responsible government. You have to consider whether the debates are to be artificially planned or delivered in a natural atmosphere from a democratic centre. The solution is yours. I would be totally opposed to the broadcasting of debates in any sectional form. Unless everybody could have the same right to listen in, I would not favour the proposal. I would also oppose the addition of one penny to the liabilities and responsibilities of the taxpayers. There is also another aspect of which we must not lose sight. The Commonwealth Parliament is not the only Parliament in Australia; there are also the six State legislatures.

Any layman who has taken an interest in this debate must have been impressed by the warnings and cautions of legal members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has stated in concise and understandable language all the disadvantages, difficulties and dangers, from the point of view of privi-lege, that would attend partial broadcasts. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) also has given to us the benefit df his expert knowledge. The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) took the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) to task for having ventured into the realms of legal interpretation without being qualified to do so. He also stated that truth is an absolute- defence; if the matter be true, the defence of privilege does not arise. I remind him that that statement is not in accord with the law of libel and slander in Queensland; there, any matter published must be not only true, but also for the public benefit. As the honorable member himself is not fully acquainted with the law, he is not qualified to take, the right, honorable member for Cowper to task for having ventured to interpret the law of privilege as he understands it. Last week, .the honorable member for New England asked Mr. Speaker to state hi3 legal responsibility, and that of honorable members, as well as .the operators of the broadcasting equipment, in certain circumstances. Mr. Speaker replied that he had just received an opinion from the Solicitor-General, and that he would make it known to the House in due course.. The present is an opportune time to let us have the benefit of the opinion he has received. By clause 14 the Government is endeavouring to protect any person who broadcasts any portion of the proceedings of either House of the’ Parliament. I understand that the, broadcasting equipment is the property, not of the. Australian Broadcasting Commission, but of the Postmaster-General’s Department ; that there is a definite partition between the” mechanical facilities and the human element.

Mr Calwell:

– The line is drawn at the microphone.

Mr FADDEN:

– I should like to know whether that equipment will be amply protected. In certain circumstances, a printing press and other equipment can be seized to defray the costs of an action at law.

This is’ not the right time, nor are the circumstances appropriate, for the making of this experiment. The broadcasting of parliamentary debates must come; but when it comes it must be undertaken completely. The proposal placed before the Parliament and the country is too incomplete and partial to ensure that value will be obtained from the’ expenditure. Public money should not be expended wastefully. The first essential at the moment is the reduction of govern- mental expenditure so as to effect desirable reductions of oppressive taxes. If the Government sincerely desires to give to- the people the benefit of modern means of communication - with which I agree - it should provide for not only a full cover of the proceedings of the Parliament but also the reception of it by every citizen of Australia. There must not be either partial broadcasts or partial reception. There are people in Australia who’ have not the- benefit of listening to national stations, and they should receive whatever amenities may be available in these modern times. .Too much consideration is paid to the city dweller at the expense of ‘ the real wealthproducers in the country districts. The basic consideration in all circumstances should be the provision of amenities for people in the remote parts of the continent, whocannot avail themselves of existing channels of communication as cheaply and as readily as can those who live in the more densely populated -areas. Having regard to- the expense involved in this- experiment of partial broadcasts, the Government would be well advised to defer the experiment and .await a decision on it by the people, at the next elections, after which the new Parliament could deal with it.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- It is important that the people of Australia should be given every opportunity to become acquainted with parliamentary proceedings, particularly at this time when the country is faced with many difficult problems. .Some newspapers, unfortunately, do not devote to their reports of the parliamentary debates as much space as one would expect. It is important that the people should know how the Government and the Parliament are handling the many difficult problems with which the nation is confronted. If that U to be achieved by the broadcasting’ of parliamentary debates, adoption of the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee, which investigated the matter, is essential. It recommended unanimously that the whole of the parliamentary debates should be broadcast. May I refresh the minds of some honorable gentlemen who may not have read the report? The committee took evidence from the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), the two other party leaders in this House, the High Commissioner for New Zealand, and other persons who could give information on this important subject. Its recommendation reads -

The whole of the proceedings in the chamber concerned should be broadcast from the main national stations and from the regional stations, as well as from the shortwave stations, except during the short periods when “ straight “ news sessions (that is, excluding commentaries or observers’ stories) are normally on the air; that no provision should be made for. any prearranged selection of speakers at particular times, that is to say, there should be “straight” broadcasts of the proceedings exactly as they occur in the normal transaction of parliamentary business, with the qualification that during divisions and such like intervals, an appropriate official (who should be an officer of the commission) should broadcast an impartial description of what is taking place. Needless to say, the facilities should not bc used for other purposes when Parliament is in recess.

Ft went on to say -

Wo are aware that in New Zealand doubts have been expressed in certain quarters as to the wisdom of broadcasting the whole of the proceedings, but we are of the opinion that in Australia complete broadcasts of the actual proceedings should be tried at the outset.

That was not a qualified recommendation, but was emphatic and was made unanimously. Instead of accepting it, the Government proposes to set up another com mittee, the constitution of which is provided for by clause 5, and its functions by clause 12. Those functions are - (1.) The committee shall consider and specify in their report presented to each House of the Parliament, the general principles upon which there should bo determined the days upon which and the periods during which, the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives Shall be broadcast. (2.) The committee shall, in accordance with general principles, specified by the committee and adopted by each House of the Parliament, determine the days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House of the Parliament- shall be broadcast. ‘

There is already a Parliamentary Standing Committee to advise as to what should be done. It has unanimously recommended that the whole of the parliamentary debates should, be broadcast. The Government refused to accept that recommendation, and brought down a bill which provides for the appointment of a further committee. I venture the opinion that it will not accept the advice of that committee either.

In New Zealand; broadcasts are made of the debates in the House of Representatives only, the Upper House being a nominee chamber. As it is proposed to broadcast the debates in both branches of this Parliament it would be a simple process to follow the course of a bill through one house, and to broadcast the debate on another bill in the other chamber.

Difficulties will be experienced at the outset in providing the necessary technical services to enable the debates to be broadcast throughout Australia, but before the scheme is put into operation those services should be made available. Acceptance of the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee would necessitate broadcasting the whole of the debates, and the necessary technical equipment must first be provided. The President of the Senate (Senator the Honorable Gordon Brown) and Mr. Speaker (the Honorable J. S. Rosevear) gave valuable evidence to the committee. The President said -

In order to make the broadcasting of debates a success, and to achieve the greatest results from an informative and factual point of view, it is essential that the whole of the debates be broadcast. The broadcasts would fail in their principal aim and object if there were any curtailment of debate or preferment to certain speakers.

That is the unqualified view of the President, and it was accepted by the committee. Mr. Speaker also gave the following useful opinion: -

Therefore, if parliamentary debates are to bo broadcast, it would be preferable to alternate the initiation of legislation between the two Houses rather than divide the time.

– Throughout the life of this Parliament the Government has been “ passing the buck “ from one authority to another. It should have a mind of its own. Mr. Speaker further said -

The people might be interested in a debate m the House of Representatives. If the broadcast were interrupted for the purpose of changing over to the Senate, and returning to the House of Representatives later, I do not think that anybody - would be satisfied. I have said that in order to give equitable treatment to both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the initiation of legislation should alternate between the two Houses. In any event, the Parliament should not surrender to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or any other authority the right to determine when its proceedings should be broadcast.

I urge the House to .implement the suggestions advanced by Mr. Speaker. The following comments were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) : - “ I do not favour a selective broadcasting of Parliament. I would, for example, be strongly opposed to a limited broadcast for certain hours of the sitting. I would also be very strongly opposed to the confining of the broadcasting to certain selected members on each side. If the broadcasting of Parliament led to a mere building up of a few members on each side, or to a jockeying for position among members so that they might be called during some limited period when the broadcast was on, it would be most undesirable.

I therefore believe that either the whole debate each day should be broadcast, or that there should be no broadcast at all.

Here is the advice tendered by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) : -

I should be opposed to fixation of the order of debates; in that respect I agree entirely with Mr. Speaker. If that suggestion were adopted, constituted authority would be infringed; because, as Mr. Speaker has said in no uncertain terms, in his eyes every member has an equal right to the call whatever may be his oratorical qualifications or his ability to handle the subject. That right has to be preserved unimpaired. I also agree with Mr. Speaker that if you were to pick out the “ high lights “, or choose the man best qualified to discuss them, you would break down the democratic feature of responsible government. You have to consider whether the debates are to be artificially planned or delivered in a natural atmosphere from a democratic centre. The solution is yours. I would be totally opposed to the broadcasting of debates .in any sectional form. Unless everybody could have the same right to listen in, I would not favour the proposal. I would also oppose the addition of one penny to the liabilities and responsibilities of the taxpayers.

The proposals before us are modelled to some degree on the practice in the New Zealand Parliament, where broadcasting has been in operation for the last ten years. Both political parties in New Zealand supported .the’ broadcasting of the proceedings, but the underlying principle insisted on was that the whole of the debates should be broadcast In this Parliament, the Broadcasting Committee recommended a full broadcast of the debates, and this was approved by the President of the Senate, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country party, but the Minister for Information, who represents the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) in this chamber, now supports the appointment of a committee which could arrange for the broadcasting of’ only certain portions of the debates. Parliamentary privilege could be preserved only if the debates were fully broadcast. The only fair and impartial way to broadcast speeches in this Parliament would be to publish the views of honorable member’s on both sides of the chamber. If the broadcasting occurred for limited periods only, honorable member’s might be subjected to unfair attacks by their opponents and be prevented from having their replies broadcast. In view of the cunning tactics of some members of the Ministry, who might have inside information as to broadcasting times, supporters of the Government could conceivably make wild attacks upon the Opposition and prevent their opponents from being heard over the air in reply. If democracy is to survive, and there is to be fair play in this matter, it is essential that the debates be broadcast impartially. The Postmaster-General’s Department should make adequate technical facilities available to enable the debates to be broadcast over the widest possible area. With the development of frequency modulation, it will soon be possible to give broadcasting services in country areas similar to those available in the large cities. That work should be undertaken with despatch. The Government is under an obligation to pay heed to the recommendations .of the Broadcasting Committee. By reading paragraphs 33 to 49 of the committee’s eighth report, honorable members will be able to appreciate some of the technical problems associated with the broadcasting of the debates in this Parliament. The Government seems to have rushed into this proposal hopelessly unprepared for its adoption. If it were implemented without the amendments foreshadowed by the Opposition, the scheme would wreck completely the organization of the national broadcasting stations. For an hour before and an hour after the broadcasting of parliamentary debates, the services to Queensland, South Australia . and Western Australia- over the national network would be disrupted. That is the advice of the experts of the department. The Australian Broadcasting Commission would -then be blamed for having failed to provide the broadcasting programmes promised, and would be subjected to endless irritation. The Government should withdraw the bill, recast the whole proposal, and implement the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee on the lines of the system adopted in New Zealand up to the present. The Government has rejected all advice that has been tendered to it.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr BOWDEN:
Gippsland

.- I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on this bill, and to the reasons or excuses advanced against the acceptance of the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for ‘ Warringah (Mr. Spender). So far as the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament is concerned, the question, I am convinced, is not “ to be or not to be”. Definitely, it is “to be”. The broadcasts will take place, and the only purpose in debating the measure lies in the remote possibility that we may be able to improve it.

The bill is a simple one designed to give effect to the recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee. That committee recommended that the entire proceedings of Parliament be broadcast, and it is unfortunate that the recommendation cannot be given effect. It cannot be done because Parliament consists of two Houses with equal rights, and the time available must be divided between them. For that reason, it was inadvisable to proceed with the proposal until it was possible to give effect to the committee’s recommendations in their entirety. .The committee was appointed to take -evidence and upon that basis to advise Parliament, but on this occasion the Government is departing from the committee’s recommendations.

The weight of the evidence heard by the committee was to the effect that the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament “ should not be done in such a way as to make for the aggrandisement of any member or party. It was interesting to hear the evidence tendered in support of the proposal to broadcast. Many seriousminded persons believed that broadcasting would tend to raise the tone of- debates. That is a worthy objective, and if the broadcasts have that effect the money which they cost will be well spent. Quite a lot of people seem to have the idea that the public are awaiting with impatience zero hour so that they may turn the knobs of their receiving sets, and avail themselves of the great boonwhich it is proposed to confer upon them.

That idea seems to represent, in the words of Dr. Johnson, “ the triumph of hope over experience “.

It was certainly not the intention of the Broadcasting Committee that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings should confer upon unauthorized persons a licence to broadcast statements which, in ordinary circumstances, would be regarded as libellous, and therefore actionable at law. I support the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Warringah to clause 14 of the bill. The clause reads -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

Mr Conelan:

– It has never been practised by the honorable member.

– Of course, I do. Does the honorable member not?

Mr Brennan:

– No.

Mr WHITE:

– I cannot believe that the honorable member, a former Attorney-General, will be prepared to sit back in silence if he is elbowed off the air by others whom the proposed committee might think more worthy of the right to have their thoughts broadcast. Sooner or later, he will object if that happens. Parliamentary committees have not always been the success that they should have been. I concede that many of them work in earnest and produce good results, but if the proposed committee should decide that certain groups !of Ministers should monopolize the air at the expense .of other honorable members who have something important, not parochial, but national, to say to the electorate through the broadcasting system, that would be most inappropriate. I appeal to the good sense of the Govern - ment to realize that the scheme put forward in this tbill is not . workable. Members of the proposed committee will not be able to agree on the subjects that should be broadcast or as to who should broadcast. Now is ‘the time ‘to put the service on a proper basis. I consider that honorable’ members would unanimously approve if- ‘the Government decided to have all the proceedings broad- “ cast. The troubles of Australia are manmade. This nation escaped almost unscathed during the war. Blessed by all the resources of Providence, it has no real problem that cannot be -solved if only the political parties get together. If parties dropped their party bias and said, “We will settle these problems “, what a subject that would be to broadcast, but, narrow-mindedly, the Government says, “ No, all the proceedings will not be broadcast - just snippings, clippings and excerpts “. That is robbing the people of a part of their heritage. At the cost of, I believe, £10,000 a forest of microphones was installed in this chamber during the recess, indicating to honorable members that the Government intended to carry out the recommendations made to it by providing for the broadcasting of all the proceedings’; but this inadequate, bill, under which a committee will decide how little of the proceedings shall be broadcast, will cause the people to say that the money has been ill spent. I advise the Government to look into the matter again and to agree that the whole of the proceedings shall be broadcast. Nothing short of that will receive the approval of the people.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– This bill reminds me of the decision of Sir Roger de Coverley in. a famous judgment, immortalized by Addison in the Tatler. But, levity aside, there was much to be said on both sides. I am rather diffident about supporting this bill because, not being a gifted speaker, I should be at a great disadvantage in having my speeches broadcast in comparison with ,some honorable members, particularly men on the front benches, natural orators, “who would have a greater appeal to listeners. But- in addressing’ myself to the bill 1 am fortified by the knowledge that, although my’ electors will be delighted to . listen in to the debates, the people generally are not so interested in the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings as honorable members imagine. I have very good reason to believe that they are not. That does not refer to my electorate, because the people” there are. politically minded. They have no legislature, no legislative council, not even a town council. They must be federally and politically minded, because they look to me, as their representative, to solve or try to solve, all their problems, whereas people in the -States have their State legislatures, municipal . councils, roads boards and so on to occupy their attention, and they will not be greatly interested in 90 per cent, of the purely domestic matters that are debated in this House. I admit that the “ hill-billys “ of Kings Cross, the Yarra Bank, the Sydney Domain and such places will be almost diving into their radio, sets to listen to the riotous matter that so often emanates from honorable gentlemen, but they will not be interested in the really sensible speeches that are never even reported in the press. I am delighted when my speeches are not reported, because I know that that indicates their excellence. I remember clearly that when the late Sir Littleton Groom was with me as an independent member of this Parliament he made, one morning, an excellent speech, one that was full of oratory and common sense, but not one word of it was reported in the press. He was disgusted. I mention this for the benefit of new members, and I advise ill em not to be surprised if the press does not report their speeches. Usually, that is a sign that an honorable member has made a good speech. If I had the oratory of Lord Rosebery, I should never be in difficulties. I could indulge in his mixed metaphor of which I call to mind the following example : “ I smell a rat. I see it floating in the air. I shall nip it in the bud “. And I am not .able to emulate Charles Lamb in the use of the long sentence. If I. were, I should be worth listening to. That master of paradox, G. K. Chesterton, says, “ There are some people who look upon the big things as little things, but men mistake little things for big things “. That observation

– I challenged the honorable member on the point, and he did not denyit.

Mr Francis:

– I said “ full broadcasts “.

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable gentleman spoke of a full broadcast of both chambers. Perhaps I cannot do better at this stage than read portions of the committee’s report, and indicate the general tenor of it. The chairman of the committee is Senator S. K. Amour, the vice-chairman is the honorable member for Moreton, and the other members are Senator Nash, Senator Herbert Hays, the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden), the honorable member for Wilmot, the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers), the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson), and the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins). The committee went to considerable trouble to inform its mind on the proposal for the broadcasting of parliamentary debates. The terms of reference, which the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) gave to the committee, were -

To consider and report to Parliament -

whether the broadcasting of parliamentary debates is desirable; and

if so, to what extent and in what manner should such broadcasts be undertaken.

Nearly two years ago the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Smith) raised this matter at a meeting of the

Parliamentary Labour party, .and .also in this -chamber. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mi-. Holt) also was very keen that the proceedings of :this Parliament should be broadcast. Having received its ‘.terms of reference, ‘ the committee took evidence from representative persons., including the Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour party, a representative of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the High Commissioner for New Zealand., the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal party, the Leader of the Australian Country party, the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Commonwealth SolicitorGeneral, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter at Canberra, the Acting Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting’ Commission, the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the former , Controller of Commercial Broadcasting in New Zealand, the Chief Engineer, Postmaster-General’s Depart.ment, and the Chief Inspector (Wireless)., Postmaster-General’s Department. In paragraphs 3-14 of the report, the experience of New Zealand in broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament of that dominion is recorded. ‘

Mr Brennan:

– Did the committee submit a unanimous report?

Mr CALWELL:

– The report was unanimous with, the exception of one small but important reservation made by the honorable member for Wilmot, and a provision covering that reservation has been included in the bill. The proposed Australian service is canvassed in para- . graphs 15-17 of the report, the legalaspects are considered in paragraphs 18-39. and the extent of the proposed Australian service is mentioned in paragraphs 20-32. In paragraph 34 the committee commenced to grapple with the problem. It stated that it had canvassed the possibility of using the whole of the 22 national stations for a simultaneous broadcast of the proceedings of both chambers, the course recommended by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), and other honorable gentlemen during this debate. ‘The committee made the following observations-: -

Were it not’ for the high expenditure involved, -the ideal arrangement would be the provision of .a network of ,22 national medium wave stations /capable -of serving nearly all the populated portions of .Australia. Equipment alone, however., would entail expenditure in the neighbourhood of £500.000. But apart from the cost, there ar.e insuperable difficulties owing -to the shortage of radio channels, unless the licences .of some commercial stations were not renewed at the expiration of their annualperiod of tenure, to enable their channels to be allocated for the purpose, or unless recourse is made -to the sharing of channels to -a greater extent than .at present, .with resultant degrading of service to listeners on account of the clash of simultaneous transmission fromstations operating on the same channel.

That w.as the unanimous opinion of themembers of the Broadcasting Committee. When it w.as found that because of the insuperable difficulties encountered, ‘ and the large expenditure involved, the proposal to use the 22 national stations was impracticable, the committee set out to discuss other .suggestions for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament. It mentioned a fifth proposition. Paragraph 3S - and ‘ again this was unanimously agreed to - reads -

A fifth proposition is to use the second national stations ‘in the capital cities and Newcastle. This idea would result in the service being withheld from country districts which rely on their local regional station for national broadcast reception. On the other hand, if these regional stations were included, listeners in areas which rely on such stations exclusively for broadcast service would not have an alternative national programme.

The Broadcasting Committee then proceeded to discuss the merits of a sixth proposition, involving a .combination of three possibilities, viz., the use of the second national stations in each capital city and Newcastle, the use of short-wave stations to augment the service for listeners in the country and remote areas, and the use of selected country commercial stations willing to sell time. It rejected the sixth proposition however, and came back to the decision which it finally reached which is reported in paragraph 45 as follows : -

The only remaining proposition under present conditions is the use of the main national stations in the capital cities- and there are in each of the capital cities two national stations, one the main station, and the other an alternative station - and the national regional stations in the country districts supplemented by short-wave service to remote areas.

In framing this bill the Government gives effect to that in clause 4 which provides-

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Australian Broadcasting Act 1942’, the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall broadcast the proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives from -

a medium-wave national broadcasting station in the capital city in each State and in the city of Newcastle in the State of New South Wales; and

such other national broadcasting stations (including short-wave national broadcasting stations) as are prescribed, upon such days and during such periods as the committee determines.

It was foreseen, at that stage, that there would be a conflict as to the times during which the proceedings of the Parliament could be broadcast. It was accordingly decided that a committee consisting of members of both Houses of the Parliament should be established. Provision for that is included in the bill. In his reservation to the report, the honorable member for Wilmot suggested that in the case of the House of Representatives a committee consisting of the Speaker, the Prime Minister, another Minister nominated, by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the “Leader of the Australian Country ‘ party should be appointed to determine matters relating to the times of the broadcasts and other matters affecting the privilege of members. The honorable gentleman also added this observation -

The Senate no doubt would feel that some similarly constituted committee should be set up. The result should be a joint committee of the two Houses.

That reservation was made by a Whip on the Opposition side of the House, and, as I have said, provision has been made in the bill to adopt his suggestion.

Mr Francis:

– But no provision should be made for any pre-arranged selection of speakers at particular times.

Mr CALWELL:

– I shall deal with that illusion of the honorable gentleman presently. The Broadcasting Committee unanimously recommended all that is con tained in this bill, and the honorable member apparently does not know what he signed, has forgotten what he signed, or does not care what he signed. -And any one of these, is equally reprehensible. The honorable member also agreed to paragraph 50, which reads -

We do not consider that, it would be advisable at this stage to specify particulars of the service in legislation, as experience may disclose a need for modification of the detailed arrangements initially decided upon. It would therefore be preferable, as regards this particular subject, to prescribe the details in regulations under section 107 of the Broadcasting Act, as they could be altered more readily by amended regulations than under the processes involved ‘in. amending them if they were set out in the act. Any such modifications would still be subject to the sanction of Parliament under the procedure laid down for making regulations.

The Government has decided not to hand over to anybody outside the Parliament the right to make regulations controlling the broadcasting of the debates of the Parliament. It has decided to set up a joint committee of the Parliament for that purpose. Clause 12 of the bill provides - (1.) The Committee shall consider and specify in a report presented to each House of the Parliament, the general principles upon which there should be determined the days upon which, and the periods during which-, the proceedings of -the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast. (2.) The Committee shall, in accordance with general principles specified by the Committee and adopted by each House of- the Parliament, determine the days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House of the Parliament shall be broadcast.

Thus honorable members will be given an opportunity to debate the principles recommended by the committee and if it is thought that the committee has recommended a procedure unacceptable to the House, objections can be made. There is nothing to prevent the committee from deciding that once a bill is initiated in either chamber of the Parliament it shall be broadcast through all stages until the debate is concluded. There is nothing to justify the suggestion that there will be a partial debate or that some members will be given advantage over others. Before this bill came before the House, the Broadcasting Committee was in agreement with the general principles outlined in it, but some members of the committee apparently cannot understand the draftsman’s way of interpreting their ideas; I assure them that what the Government has done in this bill is even better than most of them desired.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– -The bill apparently does not represent what the members of the committee had in mind.

Mr CALWELL:

– I’ am suggesting that’ the provisions of the bill represent an improvement on what they had in mind. The members of the committee wanted to have these matters dealt with by regulation: the bill prescribes that that shall be left to the joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament. Paragraph 52 of the report reads:-

We suggest that provision be made for overall control to be vested in the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as regards broadcasts from their respective chambers; that during the experimental periods the whole of. the proceedings in the chamber concerned- not in one chamber for the whole of the time to the exclusion of “the other chamber - should be broadcast from the main national stations and from the regional stations, as well as from the short-wave stations, except during the short periods when “ straight “ news sessions (that is, excluding commentaries or observers’ stories) are normally on the air; .

That is more likely of achievement through a committee than by any other means. How could the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker of the House of Representatives- and this was the weakness of the report - decide the issue as to which proceedings should be broadcast if both chambers desired to have their proceedings broadcast simultaneously ?

Mr White:

– I suggest that the Minister read paragraph 53.

Mr CALWELL:

– I have no objection to reading it, though the honorable member himself declined to do so.

Mr White:

– I did not have a copy of the report at my disposal then.

Mr CALWELL:

– The paragraph reads -

We are aware that in New Zealand doubts have been expressed in certain quarters as to the wisdom of broadcasting the whole of the proceedings, but we are of the opinion that in Australia complete broadcasts of the actual proceedings should be tried at the outset, leaving the question of modification for consideration in the light of experience.

It was not contemplated that the proceedings of both Houses should be broadcast simultaneously.

Mr Guy:

– No one has suggested that.

Mr CALWELL:

– The Leader of the Opposition suggested it, as also did the honorable members for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) and Richmond (Mr. Anthony). In paragraph 49 the Broadcasting Committee had this to say -

The difficulty of varying times could be overcome, where necessary, by recording the proceedings as they occur and broadcasting from the discs at the proper times, using land-lines, for transmission of the recordings to the local stations from which the broadcasts would be made.

Most of the criticism has been in respect of re-broadcasts. It is feared by honorable members opposite that something may be done, which will be detrimental to their interests. Yet the course mentioned was actually recommended. The members concerned did not know what they were doing, or they have now developed a fear complex in regard to the result of the elections. Strong protests have been made about clause 14, which provides -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

Honorable gentlemen opposite have discovered in that provision a grave attack upon the privileges of members of Parliament, and a device whereby one political party will secure, an advantage over another. The honorable member for Moreton subscribed to the following recommendation ‘ in paragraph 51 : -

The introduction of legislation to provide for the application of absolute privilege to such broadcasts is also recommended-

Mr Francis:

– On the advice of the Attorney-General.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am reading what the honorable member recommended, not his afterthought. The recommendation continues - as an extension of the privilege conferred by legislation passed in 1935 in respect of Hansard reports.

Mr Francis:

– That is in respect of a broadcast of the whole of the proceedings.

Mr CALWELL:

– In paragraph 51, the committee recommended the introduction of legislation to provide for absolute privilege in respect of the broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings, in the same way as the publication of Hansard is privileged. Let me show the way in which privilege is accorded to the publication of Hansard. Section 4 (1) of the Parliamentary Papers Act 190S-1935 provides -

No action or .proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for publishing any document published under the authority of the Senate or of the House of Representatives.

Tn the bill, those words have been repeated where they apply. I shall read them again -

No action or. proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person-. -

Here is where the change occurs - for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

– A limitation on the power to broadcast anything is imposed by the relevant sections of the AustralianBroadcasting Act. Section 63 of that act covers the matter in part, and so does section 92. I am giving to honorable gentlemen opposite a lot of cheap legal advise, and I hope that they will benefit from it. Section 63 of the Australian Broadcasting Act provides -

The licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall not relay or broadcast any part of the programme of any other broadcasting station, whether situated in Australia or elsewhere, without the consent of the owner or licensee of the originating station and the approval of the Minister.

That at least answers the arguments of those who fear that- something sinister is being attempted under this legislation. Section 93 makes this provision -

A person shall not, without the consent of the owner or licensee of the station and the approval of the Minister, publish in any manner whatsoever any portion of the text of an item transmitted by a broadcasting station, whether situated iri Australia or elsewhere.

That would prevent any newspaper or person from taking a note of a broadcast of the proceedings of this Parliament, and subsequently publishing it; consequently, the danger of partiality, which honorable gentlemen: opposite have convinced themselves exists, has substance only in their own disordered imaginations.

Mr Bowden:

– The Minister cannot convince me that “ any . person “ means other than “ any person “.

Mr CALWELL:

– If the honorable member is so easily convinced I am astounded that any electorate should send him to this Parliament.

Mr Menzies:

– May I interrupt the Minister, in order to put a question to him ?

Mr CALWELL:

– No. The privilege granted by the Constitution, which protects the members of this Parliament, is a privilege that ‘ has existed from the earliest days of colonial legislation. In the legislation of the parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia there are provisions somewhat similar to that which appears in the Australian Constitution; but they give to members of the State legislatures- no more protection than is accorded to members of the House of Commons. It has remained for- an honorable member, who is not here to-night to move his amendment in committee, to rise in his place in this Parliament to suggest during the earlier stages of the bill, that the privileges which have existed in this country under all forms of representative government for over 90 years .should now be diminished. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), in making his contribution to the debate, said this -

I have for a long time been convinced that quite apart from the aspect of broadcasting, there is a need for the establishment of a committee of privileges, consisting of Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, which, upon an honorable member rising in his place and claiming that parliamentary privilege has been abused, should have power to discipline the offending member, and, in extreme cases, te impose “penalties even as drastic as suspension from the service of this House for a. long period. . . .

The absolute privilege which applies in this House springs from ancient times. It springs from the necessity that men charged with legislating for the country shall be entitled to speak without fear or favour, and T can understand that. “However, I believe that absolute privilege does require remodelling in the light of present-day circumstances.

That is what Hitler said, and what every dictator has said. It is always said by those who .desire to whittle down the privileges of the Parliament so that wealth may bestride this country and dominate it. Honorable members are sent here by the common people, and they are protected in anything they say for the ‘common good; but, if the honorable member for Warringah had his way, there would be no protection “at all, and certainly not for members of the Labour party. There are people in this country who think that it is a breach, of privilege to say that the present system of society is based on the lie that every citizen can get social justice and economic security. Certain honorable members opposite have developed strange ideas about privilege. The Leader of the Opposition said that the proper way to correct a certain matter affecting’ privilege to which he had referred was “ not by removing the privilege of the Parliament. That would be a tremendous step and a very dangerous step “. The honorable member for Warringah remarked -

I see no reason why the privilege extended to honorable members in this House should be unlimited.

This is not a hill in which to make any alteration of the privilege of members of this Parliament, because the measure will be administered by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron). He is not the Minister to deal with questions of members’ privileges.- Therefore, much that the honorable member for Warringah has said in his contribution to the debate will probably not be .considered by the House at all. He has foreshadowed an amendment which fully complies with a definition given by the late Alfred Deakin, in describing a speech made by one of his political opponents, when he said, “It consists of a necklace of- negatives “. I have no doubt that the honorable member’s amendment will be rejected at a later stage. I have quoted from paragraphs 43 to .49 of the report of the Broadcasting Committee, to which the honorable member for Moreton referred, and have pointed out that the signature of the honorable member was appended to the report. I quoted the appropriate reference in the. report regarding the privilege, which should be given to the members of the committee to be established under the bill and any other persons engaged in broadcasting the debates. That covers the employees of the commercial .stations and. any short-wave stations- which broadcast speeches made- in this, or the other House of the Parliament from the floor, of the House. I hope later, that we- may have a. joint sitting, of. both branches of the legislature to hear the Prime Minister of Great. Britain, Mr.. Attlee. Perhapshonorable members opposite will object to . that.

Mr Menzies:

– We would at the beginning of an election campaign.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

-T.he- Liberal, party would, not have objected, to a. visit by Mr. Churchill; but he would not come to Australia, because obviously he did not wish to- be- mixed up, with the crowd of Conservatives here who- pass as Liberals-.

This bill should have reached the com.mittee stage early on Friday,, and that stage, should have- been passed long, ere now; but. I am obliged to reply to, the’ contention of the Opposition, which is based partly on ignorance and. partly on fear.

Mr.-. Bowden.: - Suppose an honorable member of this. House’ made ani attack on another member, which was a vile calumny… . That, could- be done under privilege; but if an honorable member stated outside, this House;, when an election was pending,, that during the debate in- the Parliament he. said a. certain thing about, the. Minister for Information, he should not be privileged! to.- make that insinuation-. What about, clause M of the bill?.

Mr CALWELL:

– That gives- effect, to the: recommendation in paragraph 51 of the’ report of. the Broadcasting, Committee that legislation be- introduced to. provide for the application of absolute privilege to* the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings;, as aor. extension of the- privilege conferred by legislation in respect, of Mansard reports. I cannot see, nor can any legal, officer of the Crown see, any point in the emphasis that: has. been placed on the word “ any “ in clause 14. The protection is; not. extended to any person at all, but to any person engaged in the work of broadcasting the proceedings in Parliament.

Mr Guy:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have been grossly misrepresented by the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell). He said that. I had repudiated the signature which- 1, as- a member- of the Broadcasting. Committee,- had attached to its report. It is true that the committee can:vassed all possibilities of broadcasting the proceedings of’ this. Parliament, and the Minister took up most of his time in reading- the comments of the committee. But” the recommendations rather than the comments are the meat of this report. The committee was charged with the responsibility of inquiring whether the broadcasting of parliamentary debates is desirable, and’, if so, to what extent should’ such broadcasts be undertaken. In answer to that I turn to the recommendation which I claim is meat and not comment. The recommendation of the committee to which I consented reads -

That during the experimental periods the whole of the proceedings in the chamber concerned should be broadcast from the main national stations, and from the- regional stations,, as well as the. short-wave stations, except during the short periods when “straight” news sessions are normally on the air.. .

That no provision should be. made for any pre-arranged selection of speakers at particular times, that is to say, there should be “ straight “ broadcasts of the proceedings exactly as they occur in the normal transaction of Parliamentary business, with’ the qualification that during divisions and such like intervals, an appropriate official (who should be an officer of the Commission)- should broadcast an impartial description of what is taking place. Needless to say, the facilities should not be used for other purposes when Parliament is in recess.

Paragraph- 5’3’ is as follow? -

We are aware that in New Zealand’ doubts have been expressed in certain quarters as. to the! wisdom- of broadcasting the whole of. the proceedings, but we are of tha opinion that in Australia complete broadcasts of the actual proceedings should be tried1 at the outset, leaving the question of: modification for consideration, in the Light of experience.

Bearing those recommendations in mind1,. I can only assume that the Minister is unable to- understand English. I cannot provide .him with the capacity to- graspthe facts, and if he cannot understand straightforward language I must leave him in his colossal ignorance.

Mr CALWELL:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have not misrepresented any one. I quoted from paragraph 45 of the report the following passage ? -

The only remaining proposition under present conditions is the use of the main national stations in the capital cities and the national regional stations in the country districts, supplemented by short wave service to remote areas . . .

Mr Guy:

– That is the comment of the committee, not its recommendation.

Mr Calwell:

– That is what the bill, in fact, provides for. The incidental things are left for determination by the committee which is to he set up accordingly to the recommendation signed by the honorable member himself. I have stated the facts, and I now leave it to those unrepentant penitents who sit opposite to extricate themselves as best they can from the horns of their own dilemma.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Australian Broadcasting Act 1942, the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall broadcast the proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives from -

a medium-wave national broadcasting station in the capital city in each State and in the city of Newcastle in the State of New South Wales; and

such other national broadcasting stations (including short-wave national broadcasting stations) as are prescribed, upon such days and during such periods as the Committee determines.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

– I move-

That, after the word “ broadcast” the following words be inserted: - “the whole of”.

– That is a mere quibble.

Mr MENZIES:

– It is not a quibble.. I direct attention to it, knowing that it is not intended that that should be theposition. It is worth while pointing it out because, if that proves to be the case,, it may be necessary to suitably amend’ the Australian Broadcasting Act.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– We have come early to the matter that divides the committee, the matter of whether the proceedingsof both Houses of the Parliament shall be broadcast or whether there shall be the broadcast of the one House at onetime and of’ the other at another time. In the opinion of the Broadcasting Committee, there are insuperable technical difficulties in the way of broadcastingthe proceedings of both Houses at theone time, and the cost of such an experiment would be about £500,000. The-

Government cannot accept an amendment which purports to override the insuperable. Nor can it incur the expenditure of £500,000 in tying , up 22 national broadcasting stations, because that is what is involved, instead of six national stations, one in each capital city, and a seventh in Newcastle, andsuch other regional or short-wave stations as the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings decides. It has been suggested that the short-wave and regional stations are not to be used for the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. No one has. any authority to say that. The committee will decide that, and if I understand the temper of honorable members aright, it is almost unanimously desired that the regional stations, as well as the national stations in the capital cities and in Newcastle, shall be given the opportunity of broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament. We must start somewhere, and we are making this experiment in the way in which the Broadcasting Committee itself recommended. The amendment cuts right acrosswhat is recommended, and the Government cannot accept it.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The Minister has departed from his contention that the Broadcasting Committee did not recommend that the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings should bein full, andnow argues that the proceedingscannot be broadcast in full becauseofthe costs. The matter before us concerns not. only whether the proceedings should hefully or partially broadcast, but also whether partial broadcasting willgive immunityto the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In his second-reading speech, the Leader of theOpposition (Mr. Menzies) said that there was an obligation on the newspapers to publish a fair andaccurate report of the proceedings in theParliament, butwhat will he the position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which will be broadcastingonly a part of the proceedings? Will the commission have the necessary privilege conferred upon it to broadcast only part of a debate? Libelous statements may be made and the broadcast stopped before they can bereplied to Itm ay happen that only one side ofa debate wouldbe broadcast. Thatwould not be a fair presentation of the cases presented in the House. The Government seeks to meet that point by providing immunity to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In my secondreading speech I raised the point as to whether a special privilege should be granted to one section of the community in respect ofthe broadcasting of speeches in the Parliament. It is unjustifiable to grant immunity in respect of a broadcast which covers only part of a debate. The Minister, seeking to rely on privilege in this respect said that Hansard, under a special act, enjoyed immunity; but Hansard reports coverthe whole of the proceedings in the Parliament. Therefore, the immunity enjoyed by Hansard is fair; it cannot be comparedwith the immunity to be provided in respect of the broadcast of only portion of the proceedings,which might contain libelous statements towhich replies made in the Parliament are not broadcast also. This matter involves more than the point as to whether proceedings in the Parliament should bebroadcast for the benefit ofthe people generally, or whether the whole, or onlypast, of the proceedings should be broadcast. Underthis provision the Australian Broadcasting Commission isto be given the privilege of broadcasting only a portion of proceedings which might be libelous. That is a privilege that is not enjoyed by the press. Any newspaper which published only portion of proceedings which contained libelous statements and failed to publish the whole of the proceedings, would lay itself open to action for damages for libel. This provision is fundamental to the whole proposal. As the amendment seeks to rectify the position I have indicated, I support it.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- Theamendment dealswith the main point ofcontention arising in respect of the measure. If the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell) accepted the amendment, he would establish unanimity on the bill.

Mr Calwell:

– The adoption of the amendment would involve an expenditure of £500,000 .

Mr WHITE:

– When the Minister raises technical considerations as reasons why. the Government cannot accept the amendment, he is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. Earlier in the debate be said that the Broadcasting Committee had never agreed that all of the proceedings in Parliament should he broadcast; and in support of that statement he quoted extensively from. the committee’s report. However, the Minister cannot have studied the committee’s recommendations thoroughly because in paragraph 53 of its report it states - . . but wo are of the opinion that in Australia complete broadcasts- of the actual proceedings should be tried at the outset, leaving the question of modification for consideration in the light of experience.

All of the members of the committee were parties to that recommendation, and in view of the Minister’s statement 1 wonder whether Cabinet realizes that he is acting counter to what was recommended by the Labour members of the committee. Kas he told caucus the whole story? Is he trying to .mislead honorable members in his- quotations from the committee’s report? The Minister could achieve unanimity with respect to this measure by accepting the amendment. I can see no reason why he should not do so.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

Mr Fadden:

– The honorable member for Dalley is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Members of the Opposition will not confuse me with their loud shouts

Mr. Guy. - The honorable member should read the report.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Probably some members of the committee did not read the report before they signed it. The cost of a network of 22 national medium-wave stations would be approximately £500,000. However, there are .other difficulties, as the report, shows -

But apart from the cost, there are insuperable difficulties owing to the shortage of radio channels, …

The Leader of the Australian Country party would not support this proposal -

. unless the licences of some commercial, stations were not renewed at the expiration of their annual period of tenure . . -.

If we propose to broadcast simultaneously the whole of the proceedings of both chambers, as suggested by the Leader of the Australian Country party, the cost will be approximately £500,000, and a number of commercial broadcasting stations will be compelled to cease operations.

Mr Guy:

– That is misleading.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It is not. The information appears in black and white for every one to see. The report continues -

The only remaining proposition under present conditions is the use of the main national stations in the capital cities and the national regional stations in the country districts, supplemented by short-wave service to remote areas. This would mean the substitution of parliamentary broadcasts in place of entertainment, commentaries on current affairs, and other items normally broadcast from these stations during the period involved.

Therefore, the committee recommended -

We suggest that provision be made for overall control to be vested in the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as regards broadcasts from their respective chambers; that during the experimental periods the whole of the proceedings in the chamber concerned should be broadcast from the main national stations . and from the regional stations, as well as from the shortwave stations, except during the short periods when “straight” news sessions (that is, excluding commentaries or observers’ stories) are normally on the air.

Obviously, the committee recommended exactly what the bill now provides. I should like to see whether those members of the committee who signed the report will now support the amendment which is entirely opposed not only to the reasoning in the document but also to the recommendations. If we adopt the amendment of the Leader of the Australian Country party we shall be. obliged to broadcast the whole of the proceedings of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. I could understand the reasoning of the right honorable gentleman if he contended that the broadcasting of a debate, once commenced, should be continued until its conclusion, but the amendment provides, as I stated, for the broadcast of the whole of the proceedings of both chambers. That proposal is opposed entirely to the recommendations of the committee. If we adopt the proposed amendment the whole of the system of broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament as now proposed will be abandoned, and the suggestion of the Leader of the Australian Country party will be substituted for it. That will involve an expenditure of £500,000 and will cause an unspecified number of commercial broadcasting stations to cease to function.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- Throughout this discussion no honorable member has opposed the principle of broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament. That point is clear, and the attitude of honorable members on this side of the chamber cannot be misunderstood. For technical reasons, however, it is easier for us to agree upon the principle than upon the actual broadcasting arrangements. The Minister for Immigration (Mr. Calwell), the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) and the report have made it clear that, at this juncture, the whole of the debates of both chambers cannot be broadcast simultaneously.

Mr Rosevear:

– Unless we incur an expenditure of £500,0*00.

Mr McEWEN:

– Even the honorable member for Dalley has misread the report. For the expenditure of £500,000 we should have a complete cover of the whole of Australia on one channel. The cost of a complete cover on two channels would be nearly £1,000,000. Therefore, the Parliament is really driven to decide whether we shall concur in the’ broadcasting of a part of the parliamentary proceedings. The test there is not whether we desire the whole or a part of the debates to be broadcast, but whether we want to achieve for the people of Australia by a partial broadcast a fair presentation of the debates. Throughout the history of the institution of Parliament meticulous attention has been given to ensure that, once individuals have been elected to the Parliament and have assembled, each shall have an equal and unrestricted opportunity to express himself on every issue that arises. Now, the purpose of this bill is to embrace within the audience practically the whole population of Australia. If it is proper to provide this privilege for every honorable member within the Parliament, the same principle must apply when the representatives of . the people address themselves to the wider audience. Every honorable member can recall occasions when a certain impression would have been left with listeners if a debate had ceased at a particular point; but the continuance of the debate, and replies to the earlier remarks completely changed the impression that had been created. All honorable members have heard persons in the Parliament and outside it maligned and traduced, and quite frequently we have heard their names cleared by subsequent speeches. That is the picture of the Parliament functioning freely, as it is intended to do. If this clause be agreed to in its present form, these deliberations will be extended to an audience consisting of practically the whole nation, but the broadcasts will cease at >a certain stage of the debate. Every one of us knows that if that occurs there will very frequently be left an impression in the minds of the listening audience which would have been changed had they had an opportunity to hear the subsequent portion of the debate. We all know that only too frequently the reputations of persons are besmirched in this Parliament, but that the imputations against them are withdrawn by subsequent explanations. If such explanations do not reach the audience which listened to the early part of the debate a grave injustice is done. Surely none of us is prepared to support that state of affairs. Whilst I proclaim myself openly in favour of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, if I am confronted with the” choice as to whether I approve of this partial broadcast with the results I have just pictured, or, alternatively, of having no broadcast at all, I have no hesitation in saying that I distinctly favour the latter. Again, if I were asked to make a choice as to whether I would have no broadcast at all, or broadcasts of the proceedings of only one house of the Parliament, I should unhesitatingly choose the former. I remind honorable members opposite that not long ago the Senate comprised 33 supporters of the then anti-Labour government and three representatives of the Labour Opposition. Suppose we have a repetition of that state of affairs and the debates on a certain issue are to be broadcast only from the Senate. . Would honorable members opposite then feel the same about it? Would they agree to permit a state of affairs to continue in which 33 members were permitted to put the case for one side and only three to put the case for the other? It therefore becomes obvious that in order fairly to convey the deliberations of this Parliament to -the listening public of Australia it is necessary to broadcast fully the proceedings of both Houses of the Parliament. But this is both financially and physically impracticable at the present time. The proposal now before us is immature; it has been brought before us at a time when the Government can not afford to do the fair thing financially nor is the country able to do it physically. I wish to make it quite clear that if the amendment moved by- my leader be carried I am under no illusion that that would result in both Houses of the Parliament being broadcast simultaneously. I know only too well that, for the time being, there would be no broadcasts at all. I want to be perfectly straight-forward in this matter. If I am confronted with thechoice between no broadcasts and a distorted broadcast - because a partial broadcast could be nothing but a distorted broadcast - then I am against broadcasting altogether, and I support the amendment moved by my leader.

Mr FADDEN:
Leader of the Australian Country party · Darling Downs

– The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) put the case admirably when he stated that the matter boiled down to a question whether there should be a partial broadcast, with all its imperfections, ineffectiveness and consequent waste of money, or a full broadoast of the proceedings of both Houses when money and facilities are available. That is exactly what I had in mind. The present is not an opportune time to incur the enormous expenditure that would be necessary for a completely effective broadcast of the proceedings of both Houses of the Parliament. On the other hand, I am firmly of the opinion that money should not be extracted from the public purse for what must obviously be merely a partial broadcast, with all its imperfections and mechanical disabilities. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) went from the sublime to the ridiculous when -he drew attention to the fact that the Broadcasting

Committee stated that the ideal arrange- . ment would be the. provision of a network of 22 additional national medium-wave stations capable of serving nearly all populated portions of Australia, the equipment for which alone would entail expenditure of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000. That envisages the most complete and perfect system of full broadcasting of the parliamentary debates of which Australia is capable. The Broadcasting Committee did not contemplate such a grandiose scheme in the initial stages of parliamentary broadcasting. Such a proposal envisages serving the whole population of Australia. The proposal now before us does not go nearly as far as that. I have already pointed out that there are many people in remote’ parts of Australia, including those in the electorates of Kennedy and Wilmot, who will never have an opportunity to listen to the partial broadcasts proposed by ‘the Government. And even the broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses fully would not, in the initial stages, necessitate the utilization of the 22 additional stations. These were envisaged by the Broadcasting Committee as necessary only to ensure a complete and perfect system.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for .Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– In order to be clear as to what we mean when we speak about partial broadcasts we should have a clear definition of our terms. I take it that the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) would regard the alternate broadcast of the full proceedings of each House as a partial broadcast.

Mr Fadden:

– I would, in the circumstances. The people should have an opportunity to tune into the proceedings of either. House of the Parliament.

Mr CALWELL:

Amendment negatived.

Mr. FADDEN (Darling Downs- Leader of the Australian Country party, [11.31]. - I move- “ .

That the following- proviso be added to the clause: - “Provided that such periods shall be equally divided between the members of the Government for the time being and members of recognized Opposition parties “.

I do so for the reasons so ably advanced by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen). The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) gave honorable members his idea of how the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings would be carried out, and this prompted the honorable member for Indi to point out how the system could be manipulated to the advantage of the party in power. Since it is proposed to limit the time available for broadcasts, I maintain that it is only fair that’ the time should be divided equally between the Government and the Opposition parties.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– This matter should properly be left for determination by the committee of control. If the right honorable member’s amendment were accepted, the Opposition would, in proportion to its numbers, have twice the time on the air that Government members would have, because in the present House of Representatives the Government has 49 whereas the Opposition has only 26.” If the purpose is. to prevent the Government from participating fairly in the broadcasts, the amendment certainly achieves it. It would effectively counter and frustrate the decision ‘of the people at the last elections, and the Government cannot agree to that. No such proposal was recommended by the report of the Broadcasting Committee, to which the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden), the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy), and the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) affixed their signatures.

Mr Fadden:

Mr Rosevear:

– On many, occasions three honorable members from one .side get the call in succession.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– The normal procedure is that Mr. Speaker calls an honorable member from one side and then an honorable member from the other side of the chamber. Three, or four, members from the one side are called in succession only when no honorable member on the other side of the chamber rises. No one will deny that that is the normal procedure. But in. respect of debates to be broadcast the call will be given under a different system. That is the crux of this difficulty. If the Minister assures me that the normal procedure as we understand it will be followed, the period of the broadcasts will be equally divided between Government supporters and the members of the Opposition.

Thursday, 4 July 1946

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

– The issue is simple. The Leader of the Australian Country ‘ party (Mr. Fadden) contended that if any attempt is to be made to broadcast the debates the whole of the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives should be put on the air. .We recognize that if the Government has 50 members and the Opposition has 25 members, the Government should derive the full advantage of its numbers. We have never attempted to. resist that. We have always been in favour of it. However, the committee rejected that proposal and decided that the proceedings of the Parliament shall he broadcast for only a limited period and on selected occasions. In the circumstances of this extraordinary and novel decision, the Leader of the Australian Country party contended that we should insert in this legislation a provision to ensure that the Government and Opposition shall share equally the period allotted for broadcasting in order to present their views. That is all. As soon as the Leader of the Australian Country party moved his amendment, the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) interjected that the proposal would destroy the whole purpose of the bill.

Mr Calwell:

– The whole democratic purpose.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– The whole purpose of the bill, as envisaged by the Labour caucus. The Minister spoke of the meetings of the committee to decide the. period of broadcasting. In his innocence, he does not know what the period will be. It has never crossed his mind. He does not know who will be appointed to the committee, but he knows that its decisions will be fair to the Government and Opposition. I do not believe it. I am quite sure that when the Labour caucus decided that the Government should introduce this bill; it had before it a clear picture of the political effect on the Labour party. Having regard to its political background, I am not so innocent as to believe that the Labour party, would agree to. the introduction of this kind of legislation without having examined minutely the- possible political repercussions. With that thought in my mind, I join with my leader in attempting to insert in the bill a precaution to ensure that both sides shall have equal access to the air. When a division is taken, we shall see who are prepared to cast a vote to- ensure, as the rejection of the amendment will ensure, that the Government shall have a partial monopoly of the air to- broadcast its political propaganda”. We seek no advantage. ‘ We ask merely for an equal opportunity to state our case.

Mr Dedman:

– How can one have a “ partial monopoly “ ?

Mr Rosevear:

– The people did not give the Opposition equal opportunity.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– I refer the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) to some- of the professors in his department. Some people have defined queerer things than a “ partial monopoly “. However, the issue is clear. We shall expose those who, having already decided that only a part of the proceedings shall be broadcast, will reject a proposal to ensure that Government and

Opposition shall have equal opportunity to state their views.

Mr BRYSON:
Bourke

.I am surprised at the attitude which the Opposition is adopting. The clause is clear. It provides that the proceedings of the Parliament shall be broadcast. All honorable members know that under the existing system of broadcasting in Australia, the whole of the proceedings of both chambers cannot be broadcast simultaneously. This bill provides that as much of the proceedings of both chambers shall be broadcast as is possible wilh the existing equipment. The suggestion of the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) is so much eye-wash. The right honorable gentleman began by raising all sorts of objections to the bill. He then read evidence which he had given to the Parliamentary Broadcasting Committee. It contradicted the speech that he was then making. He turned somersaults, and attempted with one amendment to provide that the whole of the proceedings of both chambers shall be broadcast simultaneously. .Of course, he is aware that at present it is impossible to carry out such a proposal. When that amendment was defeated, as he knew it would be, he submitted the proposal now under consideration. He is attempting to show that the Government is trying to “ put over “ some trick to gag the Opposition in debates. If the proceedings of this chamber are broadcast for four hours, six hours or twelve hours in any one day and the rules of debate are observed as they have been in the past, the Opposition will always have its opportunity to be heard. Since I have been a member of this Parliament, I have listened to considerably more speeches from members of the Opposition than from honorable members on this side of the chamber.

In my opinion, the object of the Leader of the Australian Country party is not to improve the bill in any way but to obstruct its passage, and attempt, as far as he can, to make it unworkable. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) reveals a similar attitude. Earlier, he was whole-heartedly in favour of the broadcasting of parliamentary debates, and signed a recommendation to that effect. Since coming into this chamber this evening, he has changed his mind about eight times, and has reached the stage when he does not know whether he is standing -or sitting. He is so muddle-headed about the whole matter that he has forgotten what the purport of the bill is.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member for Moreton stated that if we could convince him, he would support us.

Mr BRYSON:

– He cannot be convinced, as I know from experience during the last two years. This clause provides for the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament. Other clauses provide the method whereby those broadcasts, shall take place. There are no tricks in the bill. We have not put up any “Aunt Sallies.” The legislation is clear and straightforward, and the only reason why the Leader of the Australian Country party is persisting with amendments is to obstruct its passage, and, if possible, make it unworkable.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

– .The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson) did not hear the earlier discussions, but I remind him that he signed the committee’s report containing the following recommendation: -

That no provision should be made for any pre-arranged selection of speakers at particular times, that is to say, there should be “ straight “ broadcasts of the proceedings exactly as they occur in the normal transactions of Parliamentary business.

Although he signed that report, he now makes all kinds of ridiculous utterances and attacks the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). The bill was thrown upon the table of the House, and apparently the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) did not inform’ Cabinet or caucus about this rather sinister committee. The Opposition’s proposal that all the proceedings of the Parliament should be broadcast has been rejected. Now, we ‘desire to ensure that the practice of Mr. Speaker of calling alternately speakers from the Government and Opposition sides of the chamber shall be observed during the broadcasting of debates. Apparently, a departure is to be made from that practice.

Mr Bryson:

– It is not.

Mr WHITE:

– Then the honorable member should support the amendment, which provides that Government and Opposition shall have equal opportunity to state their views. Is the honorable member for Bourke able to support that?

Mr Bryson:

– No.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member is not capable of reasoning. This amendment will test the sincerity of the Government. The Minister can accept it without loss of prestige, although he stated that it would destroy the purpose of the bill. I was prepared to accept this as a halfbaked but reasonably fair bill to bring the Parliament closer to the people. To the Minister for Information, who claims that the proposed amendment will destroy the purpose of the bill, I can only say that if that be so its purpose is one of illintent. Let us put the amendment to a vote and thus provide an opportunity to test the sincerity of honorable members opposite.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) frankly admitted that the whole purpose of the amendment was to destroy the bill.

Mr McEwen:

– That is a misrepresentation.

Mr CONELAN:

– The honorable member openly admitted that that was the purpose of the amendment.

Mr McEwen:

– Not to destroy the bill but to destroy the intention of caucus.

Mr CONELAN:

– It is obvious that honorable members opposite are suffering from a bad attack of pre-election jitters. The Broadcasting Committee as a whole approved of certain recommendations upon which this bill is based. But since the bill has been before us it, has become increasingly obvious that the whips have been cracked over the heads of those honorable members opposite who put their signature to the Broadcasting Committee’s report. Can there be any other explanation of their hostility to the bill? It is admitted on all sides that a full and complete broadcast of the proceedings of both Houses of the Parliament is impossible at the present time. Therefore the object of the amendment can be no other than to destroy the bill.

Mr McEwen:

– I repeat that its purpose is to defeat the intention of caucus.

Mr CONELAN:

– At the last election the people of Australia were asked to decide to what party they should entrust the reins of Government, and by their votes they returned to this Parliament twice as many representatives of the Labour party as of the parties in Opposition. Honorable members opposite, how mentary debates will not alter the procedure normally adopted by the Chair ever, have the audacity to claim that despite their numerical inferiority speakers for the anti-Labour parties should be allotted broadcast time equal to that allotted to members who sit on this side of the chamber. I pointed out that the broadcasting of the Parliament in calling members alternately from the Government and Opposition sides as far as it is practicable to do so. It does not always happen, however, that members of the three parties represented in this chamber are alternately called. I recollect that during a recent debate in this chamber the honorable members for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann), Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) and Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) successively received the call from the Chair. I have invariably found that more speakers rise from the Opposition than from the Government side: I fail to see any merit in the amendment, and I shall vote against it.

Question put -

That the proviso proposed to be added be so added (Mr. Fadden’s amendment).

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. W. J. F. Riordan.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 - (1.) As soon as conveniently practicable after the commencement of this Act, and thereafter at the commencement of the first session of every Parliament, a Joint Committee of six members of the Parliament, to be called the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, shall be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament with reference to the appointment of members to serve on Joint Select Committees of both Houses of the Parliament. (2.) One of the members of the Committee shall be the President of the Senate, one member shall be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, of the other four members of the Committee, two shall be members of, and appointed by, the Senate and two shall be members of, and appointed by, the House of Representatives.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for- Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause ( 1 ) , the word “ six “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ nine “.

The purpose of the amendment is to restore the committee to the number for which provision was made when the bill was introduced in the Senate. The committee will consist of the President of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Representatives, and seven other members.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.It is well to realize that there is a certain significance in this proposal. The bill 33 it now stands provides for equal representation of both Houses of the Parliament on the committee that is to be appointed to consider and report upon certain matters. Under the British bicameral system of government, the fundamental principle has been accepted that there shall be no subordination of one branch of the legislature to the other. I am sure that none of the existing procedural processes of the Commonwealth Parliament would enable one chamber to exercise authority over the other. I understand the purpose of the amendment to be to restore -the constitution of the committee to that which was provided for in the bill when it was introduced in the Senate. The Senate, taking the attitude that it should not in any circumstances be subordinated to the House of Representatives by having a minority representation on a joint parliamentary committee, insisted Upon having equal representation. I am prepared to uphold the important principle of equality of the two Houses in our parliamentary system. The Government should not submit an amendment designed to give to the House of Representatives majority representation on a joint parliamentary committee, the purpose of’ which is to exercise authority in respect of a matter affecting the, two Houses, It is taking a serious and an unprecedented step in pursuing such a course.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I accept my share of the responsibility for the proposal to ask the Senate to amend its decision in regard to the composition of the proposed committee. I do not accept the view put forward by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) that equality of representation of the two Houses on parliamentary committees has always been an accepted principle. Let us consider the composition of the joint committees appointed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Broadcasting Committee, upon’ whose report largely this legislation was based, is composed of three senators and six members of the House of Representatives. A motion proposing that representation was passed by both Houses without protest in either. . The Public Works Committee consists of three members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives. I have not heard of any protest having been made by the Senate in regard to its representation on that very important body.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The money powers of the Senate are very limited.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I am not questioning that. The Public Works Committee examines works projects of the Commonwealth Government, and makes recommendations to both Houses of the Parliament in relation thereto. The Social Security Committee, upon whose recommendations most, of the social services legislation of this Government and the last Administration was based, consists of three members of the Senate and four members of the House of Representatives. The War Expenditure Committee has on it two members of the Senate and .five members of the House of Representatives. Those are the only Parliamentary committees that are now in existence. They have made importantrecommendations to different governments, and I’ have not heard of any protest regarding inequality of representation. Equality of representation of the two chambers has never been an accepted principle. I stated in evidence to the Broadcasting Committee that it would have to make up its mind as to whether the broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings were to be regarded as having entertainment or educational value. The number of members of the House of Representatives is more than double the number of senators, consequently, this chamber ought to have greater representation on committees than has the other chamber. Those who sincerely believe that the proceedings of the Parliament should be broadcast must admit, that the broadcasts should be made of the proceedings of that House which will most appeal to listeners. In making that statement, I am not saying anything derogatory of the Senate. The interest displayed by visitors and residents of Canberra is a true criterion of the appeal that is made. Whenever there is an important debate in the House of Representatives, its galleries are filled to overflowing, whereas the galleries “reserved for strangers in, the Senate chamber are invariably empty-. That is generally the position. Politically minded people who will listen to parliamentary proceedings will be guided by the interest taken in the respective Houses in the past, and I consider that this chamber is entitled to the representation sought. I object to the argument advanced by the honorable member for Indi as to the right of the two branches of the legislature to equality of representation. In the selection of members of important parliamentary committees the two Houses have never had equality of representation.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.We do not frequently hear the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) and we are reminded that he is no mean antagonist in debate. I recall that, when the Labour party was in opposition, he showed much skill in debate, and he has now demonstrated that he has not lost the art and some of the artifices of debate. One of the oldest tricks which he has presented is that of replying to a point which his opponent has not made. I claim that there is no precedent for any machinery, committee, or regulation enabling one branch of the legislature to exercise authority over the other on procedural matters. The honorable member for Dalley has shrewdly pointed out that the House of Representatives has a majority of members on the Social Ser-‘ vices Committee, the Public Works Committee, and t.he War Expenditure Committee, but those committees have nothing to do with the procedural conduct of debates in this Parliament. Had I not replied to the honorable member he might have “got away with” a shrewd trick; but it is not difficult to expose the fallacy, of his argument. He cannot challenge my contention that there is nothing in our parliamentary practice which enables one House to exercise authority over the other in- the procedural conduct of its affairs. . ‘

Mr Rosevear:

– To which committee does the honorable member refer as having equal representation of both chambers ?

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not know of any such committee. The honorable member for Dalley makes the purpose of the hill doubly clear when he says that there is greater interest in the proceedings of the House of Representatives than in those of the Senate. For what purpose does he want this chamber to have the greater representation on the proposed committee other than to ensure that it shall get more time on the air than the Senate?

Mr Rosevear:

– The leaders of the three political parties are members of this House.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is a statement of fact, but not a good argument in reply to my contention. It is abundantly clear that the purpose is to reduce the Senate to a subordinate position in the eyes of the people of Australia, thus getting nearer to realization of the policy indicated by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) yesterday, who interjected that the Senate should be abolished. One step nearerhome ! But the honorable member lacked the courage to come out with a forthright policy.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) has admitted that he knows of no committee of this Parliament that has equal representation of the two chambers. As Mr. Speaker and each of the leaders of the three political parties in this cham- ber will no doubt be members of the proposed committee, there will probably be at least four members of this chamber on it. Surely the honorable member for Indi does not suggest that the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden) or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) should be left off the committee. He wishes to depart from the recognized practice, which is founded on thefact that the House of Representatives, having more than twice as many members as the Senate, should have greater representation than the other chamber on all committees.

Amendment agreed to. .

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

: - I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.), the word”four” beleftout, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “seven”; and the word “two”, second occurring, lie left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the proposed committee shall consist of five members of the House of Representatives, apart from the President of the Senate and Mr. Speaker, of whom two shall represent the Opposition and three shall represent the Government, and two members of the Senate, one to be appointed from the Government side and the other from the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

At any meeting of the committee -

three members shall form a quorum;

Amendment (by Mr.Calwell) agreed to-

That the word “ three “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11-

The committee may sit and transact business during any adjournment or recess as well as during the session, and may sit at such times and in such places, and conduct their proceedings in such manner, as they deem proper.

Amendment (by Mr. Calwell) agreed to-

That, after the word “ times “, the following words be inserted:-“ (including times while either House of the Parliament is actually sitting) “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Delegation to SubCommittee).

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

.- I move -

That, at the end of the clause, the following sub-clause be added : - “ (4.) The Sub-Committee may sit and transact business during any adjournment or recess as well as during the session, and may sit at such times (including times while either House of the Parliament is actually sitting) as they deem proper. “

Under the Standing Orders it is not possible for any joint committee to sit while either House of Parliament is actually sitting. However, it may be desirable that this particular committee should sit while one of the Houses, is sitting. If this amendment were not made the committee might not be able to carry on its work.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Will -the committee be authorized to sit after Parliament is dissolved? This is important in view of another amendment which the Minister proposes to move later.

Mr Calwell:

– I imagine that when Parliament is dissolved all parliamentary committees will automatically go out of existence. No committee of Parliament can exist if Parliament itself has ceased to exist.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– But . would the committee be able before the dissolution to , make decisions regarding broadcasting which would continue to be binding on the Australian Broadcasting Commission after the dissolution?

Mr Calwell:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– In the absence of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), I move on his behalf -

That the clause be left out and that in lieu thereof the following new clause be inserted: - “14. - (1.) No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its servants, agents and employees, for broadcasting or rebroadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. “ (2.) No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any member’ of either House of Parliament for any defamatory matter spoken or imputation made by him and broadcast or re-broadcast in accordance with this act unless such matter or imputation be untrue in fact, in which event the immunity hereby conferred shall not apply if the matter were spoken or imputation made by such member maliciously or with knowledge :….. it was false.”.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– The amendment falls into two parts, and I should like to vote’ on them separately. Sub- clause 1 is, I think, a proper protection to give to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, assuming that we accept the principle of giving privilege to partial broadcasts. I have said what I wanted to say on that subject. If that principle is accepted, the amendment seems to be reasonable. But the second part of the amendment, which is designed to alter the privilege of members of Parliament in relation to debate, is not one that can command my support. I should perhaps add a word to what has been said on this question of privilege, which is very important. There has been some confusion about it in the .course of the consideration of this bill. The problem is not one of the privilege of the member of Parliament. As I pointed out in my second-reading speech, the privilege of the Parliament rests on an entirely different basis, one that this bill does not touch. Whether an honorable member, is reported in a newspaper or in Hansard or is broadcast, it is still true that what he says in the chamber cannot be made the subject-matter, or cause of action against him. So the privilege of a member of Parliament we can set on one side. It is not touched. All that the bill proposes to do under clause 14 is to give a new privilege to a new publishing medium, the broadcasting medium. I pointed out before that th basic distinction is a distinction between, on the one hand, the qualified privilege that we give to the newspaper, a privilege attaching to only a fair and accurate report, which, in the case of attack and counter-attack, must be balanced if it is to enjoy that protection, and, on the other hand, the absolute privilege now proposed to be conferred upon the partial broadcast of parliamentary debates. I take the greatest exception to conferring the latter form of privilege. This does not concern members, except insofar as the creation of this privilege may actually damage a- member. It may have the result of conferring on the Australian Broadcasting .Commission privilege for the transmission to the public of a defamatory statement which, in other circumstances, would enjoy no privilege at all.

Mr Rosevear:

– And any other broadcasting station could get a recording of the original broadcast for re-broadcasting.

Mr MENZIES:

– I was coming , to that.” I am taking the matter in two steps. This requires a great deal of thought. “We are creating this new absolute privilege for the broadcasting of only a portion of a debate. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) has foreshadowed an amendment to insert the word “ re-broadcasting “ in clause 14 after the word “broadcasting”. So absolute privilege will attach not only to the original broadcast but to a re-broadcast of a portion of a debate, and the re-broadcast, of course, need not be a reproduction of all the matter in the original broadcast. It may be a re-broadcast of one speech or a fraction of a speech, and we are attaching abso-lute privilege to that. That seems to me most unsound. The only protection would be that conferred in ‘ the foreshadowed new clause - 13a. - (1.) The committee shall have power to determine the conditions in accordance with which a re-broadcast may be made of any portion of the proceedings of .either House of the Parliament. (2.) No re-broadcast shall be made of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament otherwise than in accordance with the conditions so determined.

All that means is that we are putting into the hands of a committee the right to say under what circumstances a fragment of a debate broadcast to-morrow may be re-broadcast perhaps six months hence. I put it to this committee that there is no’ occasion whatever for rebroadcasts except for the purpose of alinement of times on the interstate service. If the purpose is to provide, for example, that Western Australians shall be able to listen to the debates at a reasonable hour as if the State were an eastern State, that would be appropriate, but, apart from the need to meet the convenience of listeners in that way, I see no reason why anybody should be given permission to take a part of a partial broadcast and re-broadcast it. But whether that is done in whole or in part to-day or six months hence, it will still enjoy absolute privilege. I say, with great respect to everything that has been said, that that is something about which every honorable gentleman should think. It is not for ‘ the Parliament to whittle away the privileges of ‘ the Parliament, but it is for the Parliament to protect its rights, and one of those rights is that its members shall be reported, if reported at all, fairly and accurately. It is no answer to say that some newspapers do not do that. Of course they do not. It is no answer to that to say that the qualified privilege enjoyed by newspaper reporters has been abused; of course, it has. But privilege is well defined in point of law, and they lose their privilege unless they exercise it according to the law. And that exists for our protection and the protection of the Parliament just as much as for the protection of the public. What we- are doing here is abandoning that protection by saying, in a rather light-hearted way I am afraid, that there will be absolute protection for the original broadcast, or for any re-broadcasts, of whatever section of the parliamentary debate is broadcast, or any fragment of it that may then be selected and approved. For that reason whilst I would support the first portion of the amendment as a second line of defence, my first protection is that clause 14 itself should be omitted, or, at the very least, that the privilege created by’ it should be confined to the broadcasting of Parliament and should not extend to any re-broadcast other than that broadcast within a few hours for the purpose of synchronizing interstate services.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– I suggest that in order to facilitate discussion of the proposition contained in the amendment we should take the two proposed sub-clauses separately.

Mr Menzies:

– I think that that would be a good idea. .

Mr CALWELL:

– Subellause 1 of the amendment proposes that no action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its servants, agents and employees, for broadcasting or rebroadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. Clause 14 of the bill provides that no action, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. Whilst the amendment seeks to provide that the privilege shall be enjoyed only by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, its servants, agents and employees, the clause itself gives a protection to any person who broadcasts the proceedings of the Parliament. An amendment which I propose to move later will extend the privilege to rebroadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament. It may be thought that at some time some commercial station should be allowed to broadcast a portion of the proceedings of the Parliament, for instance, a speech by the British Prime Minister during his visit to Australia. If the clause is limited to the employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission only, protection is not given to employees of any commercial station who may broadcast a portion of the proceedings of the Parliament. I desire to cover the whole position, and I suggest that honorable members agree to the clause which provides that any person employed in the work of broadcasting the proceedings of either House of the Parliament shall be protected.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The honorable member for Warringah (Mi1. Spender), in framing his amendment, took into consideration the fact that the clause extended protection to any person, whilst the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) explained that the amendment would prevent a commercial station from re-broadcasting proceedings of the Parliament.

Mi-. Calwell - No.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Minister mentioned that the amendment would not extend protection to a commercial station which might broadcast, for in stance, a speech by the British Prime Minister in this building. The amendment is designed to place a responsibility upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission which is responsible to the Parliament by virtue of the .fact that it will originate the broadcasts. But if the provision is left in the broadest terms to cover any person, there will be nothing whatever to prevent a commercial station at some stage from extracting some portion of a speech and re-broadcasting it with complete immunity. We object to making the provision so wide. The point is that protection should be extended to a body which is responsible to the Parliament, but not to a commercial’ broadcasting station that may broadcast some part of a speech made six months previously.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

This clause has given me a great deal of anxiety, particularly in relation tu the privileges of honorable members. I listened carefully to the speech made by the honorable member fo:- Warringah (Mr. Spender). I heard his criticism and his alternative, and from my study of parliamentary privilege,. I should say that no proposition more damaging to parliamentary privilege has been made than that contained in the amendment ‘ forecast and circulated by the honorable member when he spoke to the second reading. I note now that the honorable member has introduced another subclause into his proposition. I agree with everything that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said with regard to the danger of the. clause as it stands in the bill. The clause makes it possible for anybody, .not necessarily, perhaps, any bona fide commercial station, to tune in with a recording instrument to an “ A “ class station broadcast, if forewarned to do so by somebody who intended to make a dangerous, or malicious attack, and by mechanical means extract from that broadcast the more malicious part of it and rebroadcast it from any other station as often as he chose. He might even rebroadcast it between the time that Parliament was prorogued prior to an election and until polling day, and the person attacked would have no opportunity to defend himself on level terms. I have the greatest misgiving as to what could happen in cases of that description. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, there is certain privilege in the publication of reports of Parliamen.ary proceedings; but when anything malicious is contained in the speech reported there is no privilege if the press, or pamphleteer, publishes the defamatory portion of the speech, or the whole- of it containing defamatory matter, and does not at the same time, publish the reply. No privilege at all applies’ to such a publication. May’s Parliamentary Practice cites many cases, particularly in Great Britain, of people having been mulct in heavy damages, notably newspaper proprietors and pamphleteers who used the method employed in those days ,to defame persons, namely by getting a member of Parliament to make a defamatory speech which they later published. No privilege attaches to that, but no limit is imposed upon the licence contained in the clause in its present form. An individual who is attacked has no means of protecting himself. Therefore, I viewed with grave misgivings the clause in its original form. I repeat that the purpose of the bill is to confer privilege upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its employees. It does not confer privilege upon members of Parliament, because that” is already provided. The proposal of- the honorable member for “Warringah is a strange mixture of ideas. First, he endeavours to introduce into the bill, which does not purport to deal with the privileges of members of Parliament, a matter entirely foreign to the intentions of the measure. He seeks to. overcome the danger which might result from broadcasting and re-broadcasting. Secondly, he introduces the matter of the individual privilege of members of Parliament. With me, this is not a personal matter, but if any honorable member has studied closely the subject of . parliamentary privilege, he will agree that this proposal makes one of the worst possible attacks on it. The Parliament itself decides a question of privilege if the occasion arises. Members of Parliament are privileged; but if, in the opinion -of the House, an individual member is guilty of a breach of those privileges, it may sit in judgment to determine, whether he has committed a breach of privilege, and, if so, the penalty for it. No one has ever recognized the authority of even the highest tribunal in the land outside of the Parliament to deal with the offending member. That right has always been jealously preserved by the Parliament. This Parliament has gone even further than that. On one occasion, it dealt with a member of the House for statements that he made outside the Parliament. Because it adjudged him guilty of a breach of privilege, it expelled him, and he never returned.

The second proposal of the honorable member for Warringah is inconsistent with the purposes of the clause, which confers privilege on the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its employees engaged in the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. The honorable member proposes to. abandon the privilege which the Parliament has always jealously guarded, namely, the right to deal with its own members for breaches of privilege. A perusal of the amendment will reveal that the intention is to make an honorable member liable to the jurisdiction of some authority outside the Parliament. The honorable member for Warringah would deprive honorable members of the privilege that they enjoy to-day, and allow some judicial authority to decide whether a breach of privilege had been committed. If that view were to prevail, the freedom of speech which honorable members now enjoy would be restricted by the fear that their statements in this chamber, which they thought were based upon excellentauthority and yet were untrue, would make them subject to the authority of a tribunal outside the Parliament. Their immunity from proceedings for statements made in this chamber would be removed.

Briefly, the proposal of the honorable member for Warringah, ‘ if adopted, will deprive the- Parliament of the right to determine privilege and exact a penalty for any breach. The honorable member is prepared to withdraw the amendment if a special committee - a “triumvirate - consisting of Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and. the Leader of the

Opposition, is constituted to determine what the House should determine, namely, whether an honorable member has committed a breach of privilege, and the penalty for it. In view of all the circumstances, I believe that that part of the amendment should not be tolerated for a moment. It represents the worst attack that I have ever known on the accepted principles of parliamentary privilege and the. manner of dealing with it.

Mr Menzies:

– I should like a direction from the Chair in . dealing with this matter. Earlier, I indicated that I could not support .sub-clause 2 of the amendment for reasons similar to those which have been stated, but I am in accord with the principle of sub-clause 1. In fact,. I prepared an amendment, suggesting that the words “ any person “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ the Australian Broadcasting Commission or any employee thereof acting within the scope of his authority “. If the amendment is rejected, shall I then be in order in moving the amendment I have just indicated?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Barnard:

– If the amendment now before the Chair is negatived the right honorable gentleman will then be in order in moving his proposed amendment.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– Because of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), I did not expect that the second portion of the amendment would be discussed. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) would take us back to the days before the last of the Stuarts left the throne of England. As I said earlier, our rights and privileges as determined by the Constitution, are those laid down for the House of Commons unless and until such time as the Parliament otherwise determines. The Parliament has never otherwise determined, and so we enjoy the rights and privileges of members of the British House of Commons. The privilege of freedom .of speech is declared in the 9th Article of the Bill of Rights “in 16SS to be-

That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

No other Parliament has ever adopted the principle which the honorable membe has proposed.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– When it suits their purpose members of the Government do not hesitate to take refuge in a statute passed in the reign of William and Mary.

Mr CALWELL:

– That would be a comparatively modern period of time, having regard to the political ideology of the honorable gentleman from Warringah. At the commencement of every British Parliament since the reign of Henry VIII., it has been the custom for the Speaker to lay claim to the ancient and undoubted rights of th members of the House of Commons, particularly that their persons, estates and servants, may be free from arrests and all molestations, that they may enjoy liberty of speech in all their debates’; may have access to His Majesty’s royal person whenever occasion’ shall require; and that all their proceedings may receive from His Majesty the most favorable construction. I do not believe thai, forty-six years after the establishment of federation, this Parliament will agree to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Warringah, nor do I believe that such a proposition should be considered during the debate on a bill which establishes the right of Parliament to broadcast its proceedings and which vests in the PostmasterGeneral the authority to broadcast such proceedings. The Postmaster-General is not the proper authority to deal with the question of privilege. As a matter of fact the whole amendment might very well be ruled out of order.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

.- I move -

That the words “ any person “ be left out and the following words be inserted in lieu thereof : - “ the Australian Broadcasting Commission or any employee thereof acting within the scope of his authority “.

Honorable members will find that clause 4 provides that the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall broadcast the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is the only body upon which a duty is imposed to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament; certainly no right is conferred upon any other body to do so. That is why it is rather curious to find that, having provided in clause 4 that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to be the broadcaster of our debates, clause 14 then provides that no action shall lie against “ any person “ for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings. I believe that the giving of a privilege to a partial broadcast is wrong. I shall not labour that, as I have already stated my view; but if privilege is to attach it should attach only to the commission and its servants. It should not be given to people who are outside the commission. I see no reason why there should be re-broadcasts of portions of the debates in this House by commercial concerns. I do not understand that. If this bill is designed as a means of acquainting people- with what is being transacted in the Parliament, then the national broadcasting systemshould broadcast the debates to the people, and consequently my amendment is designed to confine the privilege to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the people who are carrying out the work for it. That, I believe, puts some limitation on the privilege conferred. It seems eminently reasonable and from my point of view it is the next best thing to having no privilege at all. I do not know whether it is contemplated seriously that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to make the broadcasts of Parliament available to commercial stations so that they may re-broadcast little bits of the debates as it suits them. I was under the impression that the idea was that we provide direct broadcasts of the debates in the Parliament. In fact I do nol know why the word- “ broadcasting “ does not cover the making of records and their replaying. The words “ broadcast “ and “re-broadcast “ are not technical terms. We are using them in the loose sense; but there is little doubt that the whole broadcast itself might be made from records. If that were done it would still be a broadcast. - The real point is that it should be done only by a body which has direct _ responsibility, as has’ the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Consequently, failing in my desire to see clause 14 omitted altogether, I propose the amendment in order to confine theprivilege to the commission and to itsemployees.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– There has been a long-standing argument between the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Australian Broadcasting Commission as to where the responsibility of one begins and that of the other ends. If it could, the commission would acquire the control of all of the technical side of broadcasting; but up to date- the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has been able to establish with every government its claim that its authority extends right >up to the microphone and that the authority of the Australian Broadcasting Commission begins only at the microphone. When the matter is one of re-broadcasting and the provision of land-lines, the officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department become involved both directly and indirectly in the actual work of broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament. It is true that only the Australian Broadcasting Commission is named in the bill as the authority that will broadcast the proceedings of both Houses of the Parliament. That was necessary because the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent authority which could refuse a ministerial direction to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament. As a matter of fact, the Australian Broadcasting Commission offered to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament. But the Government considered that the Parliament’ should not be dependent upon the favour of ‘an instrumentality of its own creation, and decided instead to introduce a bill which would enable a direction to be given to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to do certain things, and to apply compulsion should that body refuse to do what the Government and the Parliament wanted to have done. The officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department are in a entirely different category. They are employees of the Crown, and, as such, can be directed to do certain things ; consequently, there was no necessity to make any provision in relation to them or the department except in the matter of privilege and immunity from punishment. The words “ any person “ were used to cover -all the persons who could be legitimately employed in broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament. The proposal of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) so to narrow privilege as to embrace only the officers and agents of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is, in substance, what is now proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies). The Government considers that everybody associated with the broadcasts should be given the same immunity and the same protection - not merely those who name the speakers and do other things incidental to malting the broadcasts possible, but also all other people who collaborate throughout the length and breadth of Australia in taking broadcasts or rebroadcasts into the homes of the nation. What the bill proposes is in accord with the provisions of the act of this Parliament, which grants immunity to those who record, print and publish the debates of the Parliament, as well as those who print and publish every other document that is issued under the authority of the Parliament.

Mr Menzies:

– That relates to the whole of the debate, or the whole document.

Mr CALWELL:

– What the right honorable gentleman says is correct. But there is” no inconsistency between that provision and the provision that any person associated with broadcasts of the proceedings of the Parliament, whether they be partial .or complete, should be granted immunity in respect of what he does under the direction of the Government. I hope it is not considered likely that there will ever be an abuse of authority by any of the employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission or of the Postmaster-General’s Department. There may be technical faults. Climatic or other conditions may cause a breakdown of the broadcasting service, and that is a contingency against which we cannot guard against. Honorable members need have no fear of any abuse under this clause. It will be for the committee which the bill proposes shall be sat up to determine how many or how few broadcasts shall take place. I do not think that any honorable member desires that the clause shall be abused, and I am sure that the committee that is to be set up Will not allow it to be abused.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden · ALP

– The Minister (Mr. Calwell) has made it plain that to extend privilege in connexion with broadcasts of the proceedings of the Parliament merely to the Australian Broadcasting Commission would not be sufficient, because the PostmasterGeneral’s Department also will be associated with the broadcasts. I have no doubt that the honorable gentleman ha.? given very careful consideration to the possible effect of the clause as it stands. Provision for the protection of those who will he engaged in the broadcasts authorized* by the Parliament is essential. So long as the Minister is satisfied that the clause as drafted does not go much farther than that, and confer on commercial broadcasting stations who make an unauthorized re-broadcast of portions of a debate, a licence to broadcast selected defamatory sentences, with complete privilege and immunity from punishment, then it will be all right.

Mr Calwell:

– The clause, as amended, of itself, would not do that; but it would if taken in conjunction with proposed new clause 13a.

Mr FRASER:

– I am interested in proposed new clause 13a, because it aims to give to the committee the power to determine the conditions under which a re-broadcast may be made. So long as the Minister is satisfied that there will be power to punish a commercial station that is known to have re-broadcast one or two defamatory sentences, or defamatory portions of a speech, after the Parliament has been prorogued and while an election campaign is in progress, the bill is satisfactory.

Mr Calwell:

– I assure the honorable gentleman that under the Australian Broadcasting Act the Postmaster-General would have the power to revoke the licence of such a broadcasting station. There is one example of a Minister having put a broadcasting station off the air.

Mr FRASER:

– I am glad to have that assurance from’ the Minister, because

I regard this as an extremely important matter. The complete protection of those who are engaged in making the broadcasts authorized by the Parliament is essential. It is equally important that protection should not be afforded to those who broadcast any portion of the proceedings of the Parliament, greater than is afforded to a newspaper or any other recorder of the proceedings of the Parliament. Such protection is given only when, the report is fair, and covers all phases of a debate. I accept the Minister’s assurance.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– We have just heard an extraordinary argument, and I do not profess to understand it. Are we to be told that the words “ any person “ are needed instead of a reference to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, because some employee of the Postmaster-General’s Department may be held responsible for defamation if he lays a land-line or provides some piece of plant? I might as well be told that a newspaper company could involve a person who supplied it with newsprint in liability for an action for damages. The newsboy does not furnish such a good example, because he publishes the libel by selling the newspaper, but I have not heard it suggested that the person who supplies a newspaper with printer’s ink may be held responsible for libels. Let us assume that the department supplies the equipment which makes this chamber resemble a petrified forest. Am I to be told that the operator of the equipment makes himself liable for what is spoken afterwards? The broadcasting of the debates will be done not by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department but by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its servants. The department will merely attend to the mechanical equipment. The commission will say, “ Here is the microphone; we shall distribute .the debates to the listeners “. The privilege must be confined to those who would otherwise be liable, and they are the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its employees. It is all very well for the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Eraser) to say that he will be satis fied by a ministerial assurance, but if he agrees with me he will have an opportunity shortly to vote against the clause.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for- Immigration and Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– We have no assurance that what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has said is correct. Who can tell what the courts would decide? Nobody can forecast the judgment of the courts in these matters, and it is best to provide against every possibility. It might be held by the courts that the responsibility rests not merely on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but is a joint responsibility of the department and the commission.

Mr Menzies:

– Why not include the Postmaster-General and the members of his department?

Mr CALWELL:

– What is the objection to including any person who broadcasts any portion of the debates? They are all subject to the authority of either the Postmaster-General or the commission. The original provision in the bill was copied, as far as it could be, from the relevant portion of the act, relating to the distribution of Hansard, and is in accordance with the recommendation of the committee that privilege should be extended to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings in the same way as it is extended to Hansard. I urge the committee to vote against the- amendment, and to accept an amendment which I intend to move- later to provide for the power to re-broadcast. Proposed new clause 13a meets the objection of those who see the possibility that privilege might be enjoyed by persons not entitled to it. It is true that the man who supplies newsprint to newspaper proprietors does not know to what use the material will be put, but the PostmasterGeneral knows that when he provides equipment for the commission it will be used for the purpose intended. He knows that things may be said which would be held by some people to be defamatory. We might get some extraordinary judgments from the courts based on the provisions of the measure if it is amended in the way the Leader of the Opposition desires. . What honorable members have thought to be clear in respect of other legislation has provided an opportunity for the highest courts in the land to divide themselves and render judgments which seem to be beyond the comprehension of laymen. This clause was drafted by the legal advisers of the Government, who do not see the dangers feared by members of the Opposition, and there is no reason why the Government should reject the legal advice tendered to it. Extraordinary powers are possessed by the PostmasterGeneral to put stations off the air when he considers it necessary to do so, and he has the right to keep them off the air for. many months. That was done during the war in respect of the station controlled by the Jehovah Witnesses organization, without reasons being given. That proved that any station which attempted to flout the law when Parliament was not sitting could be quickly penalized.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The statement that the PostmasterGeneral has the power to put stations off the air is not quite correct, as the powers previously exercisedare now to be modified in certain important particulars. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) showed conclusively that for the protection of the privileges ofthe Parliament the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) should be accepted. Shortly afterwards the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Eraser) took a similar stand. When two of the most acute minds on the Government side support the case presented by the Opposition, there are two courses open to the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). I prefer that he should tell the Minister in charge of the bill not to be so dogmatic to be, now and again, a little more reasonable. A further suggestion is that he should refer the matter back to caucus for further consideration. If this clause goes through in spite of the case made out against it by some of the Government’s own supporters, the purpose of this committee will be stultified. When in committee we should consider measures, not in a party spirit, but in a desire to do what is right in the circumstances.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Menzies’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr. W. J. F. Riordan.)

AYES: 16

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Calwell) agreed to-

That after the word “broadcasting” the following words be inserted: - “or rebroadcasting” .

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 consequentially amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

New clause 13a.

Motion (by Mr.Calwell) agreed to -

That, after clause 13, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 13a. - (1.) The committee shall have power to determine the conditions in accordance with which a re-broadcast may be made of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. (2.) No re-broadcast shall be made of any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament otherwise than in accordance with theconditions so determined.”

Title agreedto.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted. .

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr.C al well) - by leave - proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. j. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2168

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (‘Public Service) Act - Determinationsbythe Arbitrator., &c. - 1946 -

No. 17 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 18 -Commonwealth Medical Officers’ Association.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department of External Affairs -O. L. Davis; J. C. G. Kevin.

High Commissioner Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1946, No. 97.

Land Acquisition Act- Land acquired for Commonwealth purposes - Tottenham, Victoria.

House adjourned at 2.5 a.m. (Thursday).

page 2168

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Shipping : Passenger, Service from Great Britain

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

l asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

Is it a fact that more than600 men and women in Great Britain are at present endeavouring to secure passages to Australia on compassionate grounds? If not, what is the number?
Do those awaiting passages include - (a) Australians who went to Great Britain to join the British Navy and the Royal Air Force (b) wives of British troops demobilized in Australiawho wish to join their husbands here, and (c) British servicemen who married in Australia and wish to return here to rejoin their wives?
If so, how many are there in each category?
What are the present prospects of those people securing transport to Australia?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The Minister for Supply raid Shipping has supplied the following answers : -

Apart from wives, dependants and fiancees of Australian servicemen it is understood that there are some 3,000 to 4.000 Australians in the United Kingdom awaiting passages to Australia. The number who have applied for priority passages on compassionate grounds is not known here. All applications for priority passages and the allotment of passages ure dealt with by the Australian High Commissioner’s Office, London. A considerable number of wives, dependants and “fiancees of Australian servicemen have already been transported to Australia due to the efforts of the Resident Minister in London, who was successful in securing an allocation of SOO berths per month. The Resident Minister in London is doing every- “thing possible to arrange’ transport to lift those in these and other categories still awaiting passages in the United Kingdom.
Yes.
The numbers in each category are - (a) Australians who served in the British forces and their dependants, 452; (6) wives and children oi British servicemen who are already discharged in Australia, 144; and (e) British servicemen who married in Australia and wish to return here to join their wives, 30.
The question of arranging passages for the categories’ referred to in question 3 has already been the subject of discussion, between the Resident Minister, London, and War Office authorities, the latter being directly responsible.. These discussions are continuing with a view to facilitating, as far as possible, the passages to Australia of those coming within these categories.

Department of Information

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

II In view of the importance of furthering the development of Australia and giving the incentive for greater production by a reduction of war-time taxation, will he inform the House what justification there was for the provision of £326,000 for the Department of Information in the financial year just closed?

What was the actual cost of the department to the 30th May last or the latest available date?

Before incurring further expenditure on this department this financial year, will he order a searching investigation into its activities with a view to a drastic reduction of expenditure?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

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

The Government has decided as a matter of policy that the work of the Department of

Information should be continued and it is not the practice to discuss government policy in reply to questions. It will be evident, however, to honorable members that the Department of Information is carrying out work of high national importance by making Australia more favorably known abroad with a consequential stimulation of the demand for our primary and secondary produce, by interesting potential migrants in Australia as their future home and by advertising the Commonwealth as a field for the investment of oversea capital. To carry out this programme effectively it has been necessary to establish and maintain writing, short wave, film and photographic sections of the department in Australia and also publicity representatives at. eleven oversea points, in spite of which the Commonwealth’s national publicity service costs considerably less’ per head of population than those of any other progressive nation.

Cost, of the department to 30th May, 1946, as nearly as can be estimated, was £242,029.
The activities of the Department of Information were recently investigated by the Committee of Review, Civil Staffing of Wartime activities, on whose recommendations the Government determined the peace-time scope and functions of the department.

Armed Forces: Deferred Pay and Re-establishment Costs ; Destruction of Stores.

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Treasurer upon notice -

What was the total amount paid by the Government to service personnel in deferred pay during the financial year 1944-49 and each month in the 1945-46 financial year to the 30th May?
What was the amount expended on training schemes for the re-establishment of ex-servicemen during the periods mentioned?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) Total expenditure for financial year 1944-45, £9,674,273.

Expenditure each month, July, 1945, to May, 1946 -

(a) Total expenditure for financial year 1944-45, £387,687.

Expenditure each month July, 1945, to May, 1946-

Mr Rankin:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

n asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Are Army food and supplies being destroyed in the islands?
If so, why ?
Who authorizes the destruction?
What is the quantity, value and nature of food and Army equipment suitable for civilian use which has already been destroyed in the islands and which will be destroyed?
Did hecall for a report concerning a statement made by soldiers evacuated from the Fauro Islands in April that 30,000 lb. of wheatmeal, 10,000 tins of salmon and a large quantity of flour were destroyed?
Did he call for a report concerning a further allegation that new Ford engines, tools and other valuable workshop equipment were blown up in a twin-engined invasion barge?
If so, will he table the reports in the House, and, at the same time, indicate what action., if any, has been taken against those responsible for the destruction of these items?

Mr Forde:
ALP

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

Yes. 2.Regular inspections of foodstuffs disclose that tinned foods are adversely affected by storage under tropical conditions, and it is therefore necessary for rejected supplies to be destroyed.
The General Officer Commanding or responsible officer acting on the recommendation of the Board of Survey.
No food suitable for civilian use has been destroyed.
Yes.
Yes.
No. The reports indicate that stores were destroyed in accordance with normal service procedure as applied to unserviceable and condemned stores.

Aircraft Production : Beaufort Division

Mr White:

e asked the Minister for Aircraft Production, upon notice -

How many aircraft have been produced by the Beaufort Division since the 15th August, 1945?
How many men are employed in the Beaufort Division ?
Is it a fact that these employees work overtime? If so, why?
What is the present actual cost of the Beaufort Division?

Mr Makin:
ALP

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

47 Beau-fighters and one Lincoln; total, 48 aircraft.
Beaufort Division’s personnel, totalling 3.465, includes 445 females.
No regular or organized overtime has been worked in the Beaufort Division since the beginning of 1945. Minor overtime totalling less than 1 per cent, of total wages and salaries has been necessary in isolated sections to ensure continuity of production as the result of the late arrival of data from overseas and of the transfer of activities to Beaufort plants in Victoria from interstate annexes &c.
Beaufort Division’s salaries and wages for June, 1946, totalled £66,212.

Tuberculosis

Mr Francis:

s asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

How many ex-servicemen from World War II. are recorded by his department as being infected with tuberculosis?
How many are undergoing treatment? 3: How many sanatoriums does the department control?
Has the department a programme for the erection of additional sanatoriums?
If so, what will be the total number of beds available?

Mr Frost:
ALP

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

1,588.
308 as inpatients. The departmental statistics of outpatient attendances do not show individual disabilities. Any member of the forces suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is entitled to in-patient or out-patient treatment by the Repatriation Department, at any time such treatment is needed.
Four. In addition, there are special wards in the Repatriation General Hospitals.
Yes.
This matter has been referred to a ‘special advisory committee reporting on the future organization of the medical services of the Repatriation Commission, and an exact reply cannot be given at the present moment; however, the number of beds available for tubercular cases in the Repatriation general hospitals and sanatoriums will not be less than 1,420.

Mr Rankin:

n asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Before a farmer can obtain a tractor how many departmental authorities have to be approached?
What are the names of these authorities?
Why could not an applicant lodge his application with one central authority, thus avoiding duplication and delay?
What is the reason more tractors are not being’ imported into Australia?
If there are approximately 60,000 tractors in Australia at the present time, how many of these have been allocated to farmers and how many to industry?

page 2171

TRACTORS

Mr Scully:
ALP

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

One. 2 and 3. The State Machinery Control Officer in respective States.
Every effort is being made to ensure the importation of a maximum number of tractors. The limiting factor is the inability of American manufacturers to supply Australia’s tractor needs.
There are approximately 60,000 tractors in Australia located on rural holdings. I am not aware of the number of tractors engaged in industrial undertakings.

Agricultural Machinery Pools

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

What were the profits or losses on machinery pools for the years 1943-44, 1944-45 and 1945-46 to the latest available date, grouped according to States?
What are the reasons for these losses and for their increase (if any) ?
Have any remedial measures been taken and with what results?

Mr Scully:
ALP

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

Nine Commonwealth comprehensive machinery pools have been in operation in four States, viz: - New South Wales, 5;

South Australia, 1 ; Western Australia, 1 ; Tasmania, 2. The financial results of the activities, of these pools have been as follows : -

In addition approximately 230 hire-purchase machinery pools have been operating in -the States of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Under this scheme machinery to the value of over £150,000 was allocated on a hire-purchase basis and repayments of the purchase values are being made satisfactorily.

The comprehensive pools were established in concentrated areas with prolific production potentials. The objective was the maximum production of foodstuffs for the fighting services to fill urgent demands which otherwise could not have been met. Much of the machinery was entirely new to “Australian farmers and Australian conditions and a considerable amount of demonstration work was essential. Moreover, in order to induce farmers to use the machinery it became necessary to fix hiring charges at levels which would otherwise have been higher. Further, the acute shortage of mechanical labour and repair facilities made it necessary to employ operators and mechanics for the whole year instead of on a seasonal basis.
Yes. In 1945, the hiring charges for the comprehensive pools in New South Waleswere increased by approximately 33& per cent. The results of this increase have not been apparent because of the Government’s decision, following upon the easing of the heavy Service demands for vegetables and potatoes, toterminate its direct interest in these pools. The machinery in some of the pools has already been disposed of and action is being taken in respect of the remainder.

Mr Anthony:

y asked the Minister for- Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, about three months ago, the Government approved a plan for farm mechanization and machinery pooling?
Is it a fact that approval was given for the mechanization of small farms which, in the past, have been limited in development and production by the amount of machinery they could afford?
If so, what action has been taken to give effect to the Government’s decision?
If no action has yet been taken, when is it intended to do so?

Mr Scully:
ALP

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

Yes.
On 20th March the Government approved of the provision, of £50,000 to 30th June, 1940, to provide mechanization on a hire-purchase basis - [a) For groups of small farms, whose individual crop operations .arc too small for power mechanization, and; (6) through contractors in rural districts for special work which it is not economic or reasonable for farmers to do with power mechanization owned by themselves. In’ all cases evidence must be provided that a group of farmers require this service. 3 and 4. The hire-purchase machinery pooling system has been in operation since early 1944, and has developed strongly in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania, and to a lesser degree in South Australia. The New South Wales and Queensland Governments, nave instituted .their own machinery pooling schemes and have not participated in the system established by the Commonwealth Government. Following upon the Commonwealth Government’s approval of 26th March, 1940, the New South Wales and Queensland Governments have, been given a further opportunity to join in the scheme, but have not so far signified their intention to do so. The additional funds provided by the Commonwealth Government in. March were for the purpose of ensuring continuity of the hirepurchase machinery pooling scheme already in operation ponding the development of a long term plan to- bo agreed upon between the Commonwealth and the States. These funds have been expended by way of advances to contractors in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania to enable the purchase of approved machinery to be used on a pooling basis and the Government will shortly be giving consideration to the question of the further extension of the scheme. In March the Government also approved of a three-year programme for the development -of new types of agricultural machinery and the fostering of farm mechanization. Preliminary surveys have already “been undertaken in respect of a number of mechanization problems, and in addition the DirectorGeneral of Agriculture (Mr. Bulcock) who is at present overseas representing the Commonwealth Government at international food conferences, will’ be taking advantage of the opportunity to investigate some of the phases of agricultural mechanization in other -countries.

Government Vegetable Farms

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for ^Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

What was the total cost, to the latest -available date, of the Government vegetable farms at Home Hill, Queensland?
What was the value, to the latest available date, of products (o) supplied direct to the services, [b) sold through the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, Townsville, and (o) sold through channels other than the above ?
Are these farms at present in operation?
If not, when did production cease?
Were there any vegetable farms of a similar nature elsewhere in Australia?
If so, (re) where, (6) what was the total expenditure to the latest available date, and (c) what were the receipts for products supplied by such farms to the latest available date?”

Mr. SCULLY. - The answers to the right honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

The total gross expenditure to 24th June, 1940, ou Commonwealth vegetable farms in north Queensland was £157,731. This amount includes capital expenditure ou establishment of the projects, including farm buildings and accommodation for workers (including prisonerofwar labour), also machinery and farm equipment, irrigation facilities, etc., in addition to operating expenses, wages, materials, fuel, etc., much of this expenditure was necessary in order to ‘bring quickly into large scale production of vegetables some extensive areas which were not previously equipped for such production.
Receipts for products . supplied from these farms to . the termination of activities at the end of October, 1945, totalled £23,882. The figures have not been dissected to the extent desired by the honorable member but it can. be stated that the bulk of the produce from these farms was supplied to the services in north Queensland either directly or through the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, which organization acted as the agent of the Commonwealth for the purpose.
No.
31st October, 1945.
and 6. These farms were established in 1943 at a time of special -emergency in north Queensland in order to produce locally a proportion of the fresh vegetables required by Australian and Allied forces based on north Queensland. At the time shipping and land transport facilities were overtaxed and the establishment of the Commonwealth projects was undertaken at the direct request of the fighting services concerned. There were no Commonwealth vegetable farms of a similar nature elsewhere in Australia, although it is understood that the Army grew vegetables at a number of points in north Queensland and Northern Australia, and later in New Guinea and the islands. Further, by agreement with the New South Wales Government, the Department of the Army and my department cooperated with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture in the large-scale production with prisoner-of-war labour of vegetables at the Riverina Welfare Farm, Yanco, the produce being mainly processed for the use of the services. My department is not in possession of the figures of final expenditure and receipts for projects other than the north Queensland farms.

Mr Abbott:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Does the Commonwealth film quota pro vide that each exhibitor shall screen a certain number of British films each month; if so, what is the number?
Are country as well as city exhibitors required to conform with the quota provisions?

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answer: -

The Commonwealth Government has no power to legislate concerning the exhibition of films, which is a matter coming within the province of the State governments. Only the New South Wales Government has so far passed legislation providing for the exhibition of a certain quota of British films. The New South Wales Act lays down that, of films exhibited by every city and country theatre in New South Wales during any financial year, 15 per cent, shall be British.

Mr Bernard Corser:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the Government’s concern to save dollar exchange, can he explain why certain leading Sydney newspapers are allowed free use of trashy American comics in what are described as children’s supplements?
If the Government is concerned, with the advancement of Australian culture in addition to the preservation of dollar exchange, why are these newspapers allowed to use these syndicated comics, which, together with newsprint for their publication, must be purchased from dollar sources?
In view of the recent banning of books by Australian authors on the grounds that they might corrupt the morals of adult readers, will the Government consider some check on the comics featuring crime and foreign jargon which are published by certain reputable newspapers for juvenile readers?

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers : -

The newsprint rationing scheme does not go so far as to lay down a policy as to the matter which a newspaper proprietor shall, or shall not publish. That is a question for the newspaper proprietor himself, provided he keeps within the law to which he is subject. If all the subscribers to the newspapers to which the honorable member refers take the same view of these strips as he does, it is probable that newspaper proprietors would at least consider whether they were acting wisely in continuing to publish them. I understand that the imported comic strips are being published throughout Australia, and not only in Sydney as the honorable member would suggest. The principal conditions which apply when a newsprint allocation is granted to a newspaper proprietor are that it shall be used in the production of the newspaper and shall not be exceeded. As regards the question raised concerning expenditure of dollar exchange on comic strips produced abroad and used in Australia, it should not be overlooked that their distribution is world-wide and this fact greatly reduces their cost to the individual publishers. Generally speaking, the cost of these imported strips is met in Australia in Australian currency and the proceeds used on services and goods acquired in Australia. Occasionally dollar remittances are approved for small amounts in respect of imports of comic strips received prior to the period of control. The aggregate amount would not be material. As a rule the imported: strips are re-drawn by Australian artists and fresh printing blocks aremade before they are used in Australia. Comic strips produced in Australia by Australian artists are likewise distributed in the United Kingdom and the United States and those countries share the cost of their production.
See answer to question No. 1.
See answer to question No. 1. In view thereof, it is not considered that the publication of these comic strips calls for any special restrictive measures by the Commonwealth Government. At the present time their importation is controlled by the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations but there is nothing to prevent the importation of copies of the overseas newspapers in which these comic strips appear and from which they could be copied in Australia by arrangement with the overseas publishers.

Mr Rankin:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Is the Australian Army Education Service still in existence?
If so, what is the total staff of this department today compared with its war establishments ?
What duties are the present staff carrying out?
Is it intended to abolish this organization? If so, when?

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

Yes.
War establishments as at the cessation of hostilities on 15th August, 1945, provided for a total strength of - Officers, 205; other ranks, 750; total, 955. Posted strength of the service . on 21st June, 1940, was - Officers, 56; other ranks, 212, total, 268. 3. (a) The provision of educational facilities for members of the Australian component of the British Commonwealth occupation forces in Japan.
1. The provision of educational facilities for members of the Australian Military Forces still serving in New Britain and Morotai, and in training camps, hospitals, and other fixed establishments on the Australian mainland.
1. The recovery, checking and disposal of books, technical training equipment, visual education equipment, etc., returned to the mainland after use in the islands during the operation of the education plan for the demobilization period.
2. Liaison with the Re-Establishment

Division, Ministry of Post-war Reconstruction, on matters affecting the eligibility of soldiers for training under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme.

The preparation of plans for the provision of educational facilities in the post-war Army.
1. This service will be reduced from time to time as circumstances permit, on the completion of the duties outlined in No. 3, but it is proposed to continue some form of educational service on a reduced basis for post-war Army personnel.

Wheat Industry : Drought Relief.

Mr Scully:
ALP

y.; - On the 28th June, the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) raised the question of drought relief for the wheat industry.

Drought relief this season is provided for cereal growers who were affected by the 1944-45 drought, and who had another crop failure affecting the present 1945-46 crop because the drought did not break in their districts in time to save the 1945-46 crop. This was the basis of the case put up by the States for assistance, and it is not practicable to extend the scope of the scheme which was approved.

Fodder.

Mr Scully:
ALP

y.- On the 23th June, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen) raised the question of fodder provisions in view of the present outlook for’ crops in New South Wales. The fodder position is being kept under close supervision so that all necessary provision against failure in certain districts can be made.

Conferences Abroad: Communist Delegates.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 19th June, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) asked the following question : -

I ask the Prime Minister whether various Communists like Mr. Thornton have from time to time been sent abroad to represent Australia at international conferences, and whether their expenses have been paid by the Government ?

The answer to the honorable member’s question is. as follows : -

For the most part, trade union delegates travelling abroad have been sent as representatives to International Labour Organiztion conferences or committees. The general practice which has been followed for workers’ representatives in such cases is to compensate them on the basis of wages actually lost during the period of absence from Australia on the business of the conference or committee, or £10 per week, whichever is the less. Under the constitution of the International Labour Organization, each member government is responsible for the travelling and subsistence expenses of its country’s delegates. However, for delegates to industrial ‘committees, as distinct from conferences, the International Labour Organization bears the cost of travelling and subsistence expenses for both employers’ and employees’ representatives. The member government bears only the expenses of the government representatives. In addition, all governments have from time to time made some contributions towards the expenses of trade union and other representatives- travelling abroad to attend important international conferences. As regards Mr. Thornton, this Government paid hig fare when he attended the first World Trade Union Conference in London as one of two Australasian Council of Trade Unions delegates. All other expenses were met by ‘the delegates. For the second World Trade Union Conference, which Mr. Thornton attended in Paris towards the end of 1945, as an Australasian Council of Trade Unions representative, no payments of any kind were made by the Commonwealth.

Motor Vehicles: American Jeeps

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

l asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

Is ft a fact that 2,000 United States jeeps are shortly to be released?
If so, how many will be released in each State?
Is it proposed to release them on .a priority basis?
If so, will he ensure that special consideration is given to residents of country districts ?

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The Minister for Supply and Shipping has supplied the following answers : -

The Department of the Army will at an early date lie releasing a number of jeeps to the Commonwealth Disposals Commission for sale on the civilian market. The commission has not yet received information from the Department of the Army as to the total number of vehicles involved, but it is hoped that it will be in the vicinity of 2,000.
The number to be released by the Department of the Army in each State is not yet known.
The jeeps will be released on a priority basis as determined by the Department of Road’ Transport in each State where the road transport authorities will permit of these vehicles, which are fitted with left-hand drive, being registered. At the present time, registration is not permitted in Victoria, and there are also some doubts about Western Australia.
Special consideration will be given by the transport authorities to country people and also to returned servicemen.

Petrol.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - On the 2Sth June, the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Smith) asked a question concerning the continuation of the petrol pool by the oil companies.

The Minister for Supply and Shipping has supplied the following answer: -

Pool Petroleum Proprietary Limited was formed as a wartime storage and distribution measure at the request of the Commonwealth with a view to the most effective use being marie of bulk storages and as a means of conserving man-power and transport. The agreement then entered into provided that the “ pool “ should continue until six months after the cessation of active hostilities, which meant that the arrangement should have ended normally as at 31st March, 194G.

Because of difficulties then associated with the reversion to a system of competitive trading the member companies of Pool Petroleum Proprietary Limited decided to extend the life of the “pool” until 30th Juno, 1946; the companies have recently re-examined the position and in the light of continued difficulty with, drum supplies, transport, etc. the companies have decided upon a further extension to 31st December.. 1946, with provision foi termination of “ pool “ at an earlier date upon due notice of such intention being given by any member company.

The decision to continue “ pool “ trading ; was one for determination solely by the oil companies and was taken by them alone. The industry did, however, give the Minister for Supply and Shipping advance notice of such decision and the reasons therefor; the reasons advanced in support of the decision to extend “ pool “ trading are regarded as valid ones and it is not felt that the continuation of “pool” is resulting in any disadvantage to the public. Whether “. pool “ continues or is abolished has no bearing whatever ‘ on petrol rationing, which is a matter for Government decision solely and is con-, sidered in the light of the supply position alone.

The current prices of petroleum products have been based on a system of “ pool “ trading and I feel satisfied that ‘the Prices Commissioner, who is in close touch with the oil industry, will have full regard to the present extension of “ pool “ trading in considering the price structure.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

– On the 20th June, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) asked a question requesting a statement showing the total civilian consumption of petrol during May, 1946, and the average consumption during the month of May in each of the five years preceding the outbreak of war, the total number of persons now employed and the total cost of administering petrol control.

The Minister for Supply and Shipping ‘ has supplied the following information : -

The total number of persons now employed on petrol rationing is 446. The current monthly cost of administering petrol rationing is £15,000, plus a payment at the rate of £4,300 per month to the post office for its services in distributing ration tickets.

Woollen Textiles: Exports.

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - -Recently the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) asked a question concerning the export of woollen material to Russia. The honorable member suggested that excessive exports were causing a .local shortage of woollen clothing.

The Minister for Trade and Customs has now supplied the following information : -

The great bulk of exports ‘ to Russia, have been made by Unrra and have been destined for the Ukraine. In addition to Unrra shipments, the published figures include surplus army material which has been rejected as unsuitable both by the local trade and by Unrra. It should be remembered that the figures for gross exports include woollen materials of all kinds, most of which are quite unsuitable for local clothing ‘ requirements.

In the financial year 1945-4C, for example, of 3,000,000 square yards already recorded as having been exported during 1945-46, approximately 2,000,000 square yards went to Unrra. The remaining 1,000,000 square yards, the greater part of which was nonworsted piece goods, represented only four per cent, of the total Australian production of woollens and worsteds.

Import Licences

Mr Harrison:

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, in order to assist therehabilitation of ex-servicemen, the Minister, on the 19th September, 1945, approved of a scheme whereby ex-servicemen applying for permission to import Swiss watches might be granted licences on an annual basis, not exceeding in any case 1 per cent, (i.e., £2,700) of the total value of the base-year importations f
Is it a fact that a number of special licences was issued to ex-servicemen for the importation of Swiss watches or movements? If so, what was the total number of such licences issued up to the 25th March, 1946, and what was their total value? 3: What are the names of the persons to whom the licences .were issued?
Were any such licences issued to any member or members of the House of Representatives or the Senate? If so, to what member or members, and what was the value of the licence or licences? 5. (a) Have any licences been granted to a member or members of the House of Representatives or the Senate to import other than watches or movements; if so, what did such licence or licences cover, and what was their value; (6) what was the special reason for the issue of such licence or licences?
Is it u fact that the department has evidence of trafficking in such licences; if so, what action has it taken to prevent trafficking in import licences?
Is it a fact that the Election Importing Company has been granted a number oflicences to import Swiss watches, including a licence for special reasons; if so, what waa the value of this licence, and what were the special reasons for which it was granted?
What was the total value of licences issued to the Election Importing Company?

Mr Forde:
ALP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers : -

Yes, the Minister did approve of the grant of quotas up to £2,700 per annum to assist in rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. 2. (a) Quotas have been granted and import licences issued under the ministerial authority referred to in No. 1 above; (6) Twenty-three quotas were authorized up to the 25th March. Import licences would be available to each quota-holder to the extent of 50 per cent, each half-yearly “licensing period. Licences are issued in the various States and the total value of licences already issued is not immediately available. However, where quota-holders have not yet received licences up to the full amount of their quota, licences for the outstanding balance are available if applied for.
J. M. Mitchell, Geo. Reveleigh & Co., F. Hammond, J. M. McLuckie, B. 0. Heath, 15. Cri’chton, G. J. Colman, R. W. Harkin, W. C. Craig, L. St Blanton, K. E. Goldring, V. M. Segel, L. Taylor, S. M. Falstein, O. Freilich, R, W. Edwards, J. Shaffran, B. C. Davies, R. W. Myers, A. Kessler, A. C. Doggett, J. Farren Price, Barton Honey.
Mr. S. M. Falstein - (a) Member of the House of Representatives; (6) Quota for £2,700.
No.
There have been statements by quotaholders that there has been trafficking in the licences issued to ex-servicemen, but no instances of this alleged abuse of the licences have so far been detected by the department. Owing to the precautions which would be taken by traffickers to cover up their dealings, detection and proof of the offence would be very difficult. Insofar as watches are concerned, the qualifications of applicants for quotas have been the subject of more intense scrutiny for some months. 4
Licences have been granted to Election Importing Company in respect of (a) goods outstanding on order in Switzerland on introduction of licensing regulations in December, 1939; (6) replacement licences for goods pillaged in transit; and (c) another licence was granted for the reason that, owing to enemy action, there was a shortage of watches in Australia and the Election Importing Company was able to obtain prompt delivery of a quantity of watches from a new supplier. It te not considered proper to disclose details of an individual importer’s business transactions. Consequently the amounts of the licences have been omitted. .
See answer to No. 7 above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 July 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1946/19460703_reps_17_187/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 3 July 1946

QUESTION

COTTON

Mr HADLEY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:ALP

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:

CIVIL AVIATION

National Service to Albury, Wagga and Holbrook

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr DRAKEFORD:Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr MENZIES:

Mr Calwell:

Mr MENZIES:

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr Menzies:

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Menzies:

Mr Calwell:

Mr Menzies:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

PAPUA

Mr CHAMBERS:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WARD:Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BOWDEN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr WARD:

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr SCULLY:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS

Mr SHEEHY:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Dame ENID LYONS:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

KEW SOUTH WALES. BY-ELECTION

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-NETHERLANDS RELATIONS

Mr WHITE:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

OATS

Mr LANGTRY:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

Mr Francis:

Mr CHIFLEY:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Mr BEAZLEY:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr GUY:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr SCULLY:ALP

House of Representatives
3 July 1946

Mr HADLEY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WARD:
Minister for External Territories · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Dame ENID LYONS:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr LANGTRY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Aircraft Production · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WARD:
ALP

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava