Senate
23 February 1956

22nd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1956

The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 55

QUESTION

AGE PENSIONS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. It relates to the case of an age pensioner who holds a second mortgage on some property which he assures me has no chance of being sold during his lifetime. He is now in receipt of a half pension. Can the Minister say whether, in such circumstances, it is possible for an age pensioner to receive a full pension ?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-. - I suggest that the honorable senator should discuss this case with the Director-General of Social Services. If he does so, I am certain that the Director-General will give it sympathetic and impartial consideration. I cannot say off-hand whether the gentleman referred to by the honorable senator is, or is not, eligible for a full pension. That would depend on the valuation placed by the department on the second mortgage. It is one of those detailed cases which cannot be answered in general terms.

Senator BROWN:

– The reason I brought this matter up on the floor of the Senate is that I have been to the department, and have been knocked back. That is why I now ask the Minister to look into this matter, and to see whether this wrong can be righted.

Senator SPOONER:

– It is quite unfair for the honorable senator to talk about a wrong being righted. I remind him that there is legislation on the statute-book and that its administration is in the hands of efficient officials. If the honorable senator disagrees with the interpretation placed upon the act, the right thing for him to do is to make his representations to the Minister for Social Services in the normal way.

page 55

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Having regard to the nomadic habits of the Australian aboriginal, will the Minister repre senting the Minister for Supply inform the Senate of the precautions that are being taken to ensure that aborigines will be outside the danger areas when any testing is being done at Woomera? Will he also assure the Senate that every precaution will be taken to contact tribes likely to be near the area of the forthcoming atomic energy test at Monte Bello, and warn them of the dangers of radioactivity ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I feel sure that all precautions have been taken to protect nomadic tribes of aborigines in that part of Australia where atomic and other tests are to take place. However, I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Supply and ask him to let her have a considered reply.

page 55

QUESTION

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR,

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to inform the Senate that the Right Honorable S. G. Holland, C.H., M.P., the Prime Minister of New Zealand, is within the precincts of the Senate and I propose, with the concurrence of honorable senators, to invite him to take a seat in the chamber.

HONORABLE Senators. - Hear, hear !

Mr. Holland thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.

page 55

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT FACTORY EMPLOYEES

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– In the absence of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I ask the Minister for the time being representing the Prime Minister a question which I preface by mentioning that during March, 1955, a request was made to the Public Service Board by the management of the Government aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend and the munitions establishment at Essendon for permission to pay marginal increases decided on by the “ board on the 23rd December, 1954, to “overpaid officers”, that is officers who are holding a higher grading than that of the positions in which -they are employed but for whom the department temporarily has not the necessary positions. Despite the fact that repeated requests have been made by the Clerks Union, and by the managements.- no decision has been given ; and it is now February, 1956. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Public Service Board shall finalize this matter at once?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I have no personal knowledge o£ this matter. I shall direct the honorable senator’s inquiry to the Prime Minister and endeavour to obtain for him the information he desires.

page 56

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, whether, in view of the huge accumulation of wheat in. Australia, much of which may be destroyed by weevil if it is not used within a reasonable period, the Minister will give consideration to approaching the Australian Wheat Board with a recommendation that the price of wheat for stock feed iri Australia be further reduced to enable our export trade in turkeys, poultry and pork to be developed with a view to earning additional sterling exchange.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Senator Henty was good enough to inform me that he proposed to ask this question. I have obtained the following information from my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry :. -

The poultry, dairying and pig industries are the main users of feed wheat. State legislation supporting the wheat stabilization plan determines the selling price of wheat within Australia for human consumption or as feed wheat. That is the Australian Wheat Board selling price. That price is only 3d. a bushel over the established cost of production, of wheat in Australia, which is probably the lowest in the world. The only way cheaper wheat could be made available to the poultry industry would be by way of government subsidy. The Government “has previously considered proposals to subsidize the poultry industry and has not accepted them. 1 have agreed to meet a deputation from the pig industry in the near future to discuss the feed wheat problem. According to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the effect of each ls. reduction in the cost of feed wheat is to reduce the cost of egg production under present methods and performance by slightly mure tUan Id. a dozen. High costs of feed stuffs are not the major element, by any st retell of the imagination, in the present high costs of production. Moreover, the supply of cheap wheat would have an adverse effect upon other Australian grain industries, including grain sorghum, which have been built up ns basic feed grain industries.

page 56

QUESTION

COAL

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for National Development observed that information emanating from various sources has been published during recent months to indicate that there may be a permanent lower demand for coal in Australia in the near future?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I see newspaper reports along those lines from time totime. Personally, it is a view to which I do not subscribe. It is true that the market for coal has been decreased to some extent by the supplies of oil; but on the other hand, there has been an increased demand as the result of greater steel-making activities and a greater demand for electric power, both activities being large consumers of coal. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Production of black coal in New South Wales last year was only about 300,000 tons less than it was the previous year out of a total production of 15,000,000 tons. Up to the present, there has not been any appreciable decrease in coal production. I think it would be fair to say that all that has happened so far is that because of the competition on the potential market from oil, coal has not obtained the bigger market that would normally have been expected from the expansion of the economy. In each of the past three years, the production of coal from underground mines has increased. We have been able to regulate the position by tapering off production from open-cut mines. I do not take the pessimistic view to which the honorable Senator has referred. I believe that coal will continue permanently to be a most important basic material in our economy.

page 56

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by asking the Minister to obtain information for me if he does not have it in his possession. My question refers to the important conference that is now in progress regarding the future of the International Wheat Agreement. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the very powerful delegation that has gone to represent Australian interests at the conference has a free hand to negotiate the best possible agreement for Australia, or have the members of the delegation been given certain limits within which they must operate regarding the ceiling price and the floor price for wheat that may be obtained under the new agreement?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not able to supply the information sought hy the honorable senator, but I shall refer his question to the Minister for Primary Industry and obtain the information for him.

page 57

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by stating that, in recent months, there has been much criticism of the pensioner medical service. This criticism culminated in the publication of reports in the last issue of the official journal of the British Medical Association in New South Wales of serious malpractices by doctors in connexion with the medical benefits scheme. I ask the Minister whether he has seen those reports, and, if they are correct, what action does he propose to take to prevent this apparent widespread maladministration of the scheme.

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I have seen press reports on the matter to which the honorable senator has referred but the offences cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as widespread. Certain anomalies are unavoidable and perhaps certain persons will take advantage of the wonderful pensioner medical benefits scheme. Accordingly, there may be some malpractices. The Minister for Health has stated that strong action will be taken against persons who seek to make something for themselves out of the scheme. I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Health and obtain a considered reply.

page 57

QUESTION

POLIOMYELITIS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether it is a fact that, as yet, no official data about the Salk vaccine to be distributed shortly by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has yet been supplied to registered members of the British Medical Association? As many parents of children in the age groups concerned will be seeking advice from family doctors regarding the Salk vaccine, would it not be in the interests of a successful immunization campaign against poliomyelitis if the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories issued to doctors an authoritative statement giving them all the necessary data concerning the vaccine, its preparation, transport and storage?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The honorable senator asked a very important question. My colleague, the Minister for Health, made a statement in connexion with this matter in the House of Representatives yesterday. In accordance with the normal procedure I, representing him in this chamber, have received a copy of it. With the concurrence of the Senate I shall read the statement, which constitutes an adequate reply to the question. The Minister for Health stated -

I feel sure that the House will be interested in a brief statement on the precautions which are being developed to ensure that the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine is completely safe. Nowhere in the world has greater progress towards the control of paralytic poliomyelitis, through vaccination, been made than in Canada. The 0nadians have demonstrated to the world how the vaccination programme may be safely, effectively and quickly put into practice. In 1”55, the Canadians manufactured nearly 2,000,000 cubic centimetres of a safe and effective poliomyelitis vaccine and promptly administered it to almost 1,000,000 Canadian children, without mishap or suspicion that the vaccine may have induced any case of paralytic or non-paralytic poliomyelitis. The major reason for the success of the Canadian vaccination programme is attributed to the insistence of high and thorough safety testing standards, which eliminate chance of mishaps. All lots of vaccine produced at the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories in Toronto have been double-checked for safety, hoth at Connaught and at the Health Department’s Laboratory at Ottawa.

In the United States, all vaccine used in the 1954 field trials was triple-checked by testing at three laboratories, and in those trials there were no mishaps whatever. It was the 1956 vaccination programme which ran into trouble and then it was only the product of one manufacturer out of five which was suspected. The vaccination used for the 1955 United States programme was not always independently tested, and was safety tested for the mw part, only by the manufacturer producing the vaccine. Since the Culler incident, the United States Health authorities have instigated a system of independent laboratory inspection.

In Australia, we have taken full advantage of the Canadian and United States experience. The Australian vaccine goes through all stages of production at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. At each stage of manufacture, tests for safety are carried out and, as soon as the manufacturing process is completed, full scale safety tests are begun. These tests consist of taking numerous samples of the completed vaccine, inoculating them into culture media, and incubating them at the correct temperature to see if there is any life left in the vaccine. At the same time samples of the vaccine are inoculated into a large group of monkeys, and after four weeks’ time the monkeys are killed and a full post-mortem is carried out. At the same time, the brain and spinal cord are examined microscopically. If in either of these tests there is any indication whatever of growth of the culture or disease in the monkey, the whole batch of the vaccine is destroyed.

While these tests are being undertaken at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, a similar series of completely independent tests will be undertaken at the Fairfield Infectious Diseases Virus Laboratory, under the charge of Dr. Ferris. I should point out to honorable members that this hospital is an institution with a staff of very great experience and reputation in the field of infectious diseases. The Commonwealth has provided the necessary equipment, and will make available any monkeys or materials required. When the Fairfield Hospital tests are negative, the vaccine can be regarded as perfectly safe, and only then will it be released for use. The Senate may rest assured that no vaccine will be distributed from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories until the tests at the serum laboratories and the Fairfield Hospital indicate complete safety. Tt is expected that supplies of the vaccine will be available in quantity in about three months’ time. The Federal and State Health Departments will co-operate in its use, and administrative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States are now being finalized. Inoculations will be free and, of course, voluntary.

I am informed that the Minister for Health will make statements during the next three months in regard to the arrangements that we are now making with the States. This Parliament and’ the people of Australia will be kept informed of the various procedures.

page 58

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA TIMBER

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. . In view of the widespread interest that has arisen in the past amongst the Australian people concerning the exploitation of timber stands in the Bulolo valley in New Guinea, a venture which involves considerable Commonwealth funds, can the Minister inform me whether an annual report and balancesheet of this joint venture have been published? If they have been published, would the Minister table the annual report in the Senate? If the report is not available, will the Minister obtain information concerning the quantity of ply wood being produced annually by the joint Commonwealth and private enterprise venture, where the ply wood is being marketed, and the financial position of the venture?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sure that most of the information requested by the honorable senator has been made public already. I am sorry that I do not recollect the circumstances in which it has been made public. The venture is being operated by a company in which the Commonwealth has a shareholding interest. Although I have seen a considerable portion of the information requested by the honorable senator, perhaps the best course would be for him to place his question on the notice-paper. I shall speak to the Minister for Territories, and such information as is available will be given to the honorable senator.

page 58

QUESTION

WHALING

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for National Development aware that reports were published in Western Australia yesterday indicating that officials of the Nor- West Whaling Company Limited had left Perth by air for Babbage Island, Carnarvon, in order to investigate the Commonwealth Whaling Commission ? In view of this, and also in view of the concern felt in Western Australia regarding the rumoured imminent sale for less than £250,000 of this valuable national asset, which has a capital value of at least £4,000,000, will the Minister assure the Senate that this transaction will not be finalized without the prior approval of the Parliament?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– With due respect to the honorable senator, I suggest that, if the proposal she has mentioned is to sell for less than £250,000 assets worth £4,000,000, the proposal is ludicrous and is too fantastic to justify its being raised in this chamber. There is a question on the notice-paper about this matter. I suggest that if the honorable senator possesses herself in patience, an answer will come forward in due course.

page 59

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I understand that, owing to the recent strike on the waterfront, many fruit-growers in Western Australia are becoming concerned at the late arrival of refrigerated shipping to lift their fruit. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether the Government can provide the necessary refrigerated space in the immediate future to lift this perishable cargo ? If so, what ships can be expected to arrive in the ports of Albany, Bunbury and Fremantle within the next three months?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

- Senator Scott was good enough to give me prior notice of his question, and I have obtained the following information from the chairman of the Australian Apple and Pear Board : -

Owing to the dislocation of shipping caused by the recent watersiders’ strike, it is not possible for the Board to agree on a complete season’s programme, as is the usual arrangement. The Board is keeping ‘ in constant touch with the position and as shipping becomes available is allocating quotas for shipment proportionate to the original forecast of each State.

From now until the end of the first halt of March, the programme is difficult as there is an inevitable dislocation waiting for vessels to discharge their inward cargoes and get into position to load fruit at the loading ports. However, from the middle of March onwards the position is expected to improve and the Board anticipates that for the remainder of the season the shipping position will be reasonably covered.

At the moment. Coolangatta has been fixed to load about mid-March from both Albany and Fremantle. This vessel will lift 90,000 cases of apples from the two ports and further tonnage will lift 30,000 cases apples and 2,000 nears from the two ports. This should meet the requirements of Albany and Fremantle up to the middle of March. Last season, up to mid-March, 130,187 cases were lifted from the two ports and, as the crop this year is shorter than it was last year, it is considered by the Board that requirements of Albany and Fre mantle are being reasonably met. Further vessels will be available from mid-March onwards although it is not possible at the present time to nominate particular ships.

Concerning Bunbury, apples are not normally shipped from that port.

page 59

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether it is a fact that there is an agreement between the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia in respect to the flow of waters of the River Murray to South Australia. Is it a fact, also, that the diversion of water .under the Snowy Mountains scheme will affect South Australia’s riparian rights in the Murray River, as set forth in that agreement?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the honorable senator’s question is “ Yes “. The answer to the second part is “No”.

page 59

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he will consult with the Treasurer,, and ascertain when it is expected that finality will be reached respecting payment of money due to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have made inquiries about this matter and have ascertained that the first distribution has already been made. The second and final distribution cannot be made until Australia’s share of the £4,500,000 paid by Japan to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, in full settlement of its obligations under Article 16 of the Japanese Peace Treaty, has been received. The Red Cross authorities have not been able to distribute these moneys because they have not yet completed their check of the former prisoners of war submitted to them by the countries concerned. Moreover, although the Philippines has submitted a complete list of former prisoners of war, it has not yet ratified the peace treaty, whilst Indonesia has neither ratified the peace treaty nor submitted lists of prisoners of war. Australia, together with the other countries which have completed their claims, is doing all it can to resolve those difficulties.

The latest advice received from London is to the effect that it is hoped that all difficulties will be resolved within the next three or four months.

page 60

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES BOOKLET

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services bring to the notice of the new Minister for Social Services the desirability of preparing and distributing an up-to-date booklet on social services benefits? The reason for my request is that the booklet prepared by his predecessor has become obsolete as a result of the greatly increased benefits, and the further alleviation of the means test, introduced by this Government.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I shall have pleasure in passing on the honorable senator’s suggestion to my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, together with the personal hope that he may adopt it.

page 60

QUESTION

VISIT OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL

Senator TANGNEY:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs say whether it is a fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Hammarskjoeld, visited Canberra last week? If so, can he say why no opportunity was given to all members of the Commonwealth Parliament to meet this high-ranking officer of the world’s greatest agency for international peace, and to hear from him the latest developments of the work of the United Nations ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– It is a fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Hammarskjoeld, visited Canberra last week? He was here for a couple of days, but it was a somewhat rushed visit. I know that he had a number of appointments, one of which I had the pleasure of attending, when I met him together with the Minister for External Affairs. It may be that his programme was so tight that it was not possible to do what the honorable senator has suggested. However, I shall make inquiries, and let the honorable senator know.

page 60

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In reply to Senator 0’Flaherty. the Minister for National Development said that there was an agreement concerning the use of the waters of the river Murray, and that that agreement would not be altered. Does this mean that, under the Snowy Mountains diversionary scheme, the extra water impounded will not be shared by South Australia? I now ask the Minister whether South Australia was consulted in any way regarding the extra quantity of water to be diverted, and the allocation of such water.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The rights of the respective States to the waters of the river Murray are contained in the River Murray Waters Act. I suggest that the honorable senator should scrutinize that legislation. I understand that it took about half a century to negotiate the agreement contained in that legislation, and, therefore, it is not a subject which can be dealt with lightly, especially in answer to a question.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA

– Is it not a fact that the excess water which is to flow into the River Murray will be water diverted from the Snowy River, which has its source in New South Wales and flows for almost the whole of its length through Victorian territory? If those are facts, is there any reason why South Australia should get any of the excess water ?

Senator SPOONER:

– I am informed that the negotiations concerning the use of Snowy Mountains water which were partly completed in 1949 were the result of nearly 60 years of discussion between the States of New South Wales and Victoria. Therefore, when honorable senators ask me questions about the division of those waters between the several States, I can only ask them to exercise charity in dealing with my reply.

page 60

QUESTION

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:

– Can the Minister for National Development say whether the Government has let drilling contracts to obtain geological information concerning the Kimberleys district of Western Australia? If so, can he tell the Senate the number of holes that are being drilled under the contracts, and the name of the contractors ? Moreover, can he say whether it is the Government’s intention to continue in the search for oil by helping the various oil prospecting companies to obtain further geological information? If it is not the intention of the Government to let further contracts, can the Minister say whether he proposes to sell that portion of the equipment which is owned by the Government?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Bureau of Mineral Resources has conducted airborne and land geological surveys over a great portion of Western Australia. In order to -obtain further information following those surveys, a contract has been let for the drilling of three holes in Western Australia. At the moment, I cannot say where those holes are being drilled, or tell the honorable senator the name of the contracting party; but whatever information is eventually obtained will be made available to the public. The investigations are being conducted for the benefit of any one who is interested in prospecting for oil in Western Australia. The contract was let some months ago, but I am not aware of the detailed terms and conditions contained in it. From my recollection, the oil drilling plant used is a portion of the plant that is normally maintained and retained by the bureau for prospecting work, not only for oil, but also for other minerals.

page 61

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I have been somewhat disappointed at the lack of prominence given in the Parliament since it met to the recent waterfront strike, and, therefore, I should like to go on record as saying that it was brought to a conclusion by skilful negotiation-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Will the honorable senator ask his question?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I should like to know from the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether any assessment has been made of the damage caused to the national economy by the waterfront strike. Has the assessment been placed before a. committee of economists which, I understand from the morning press, is advising the Government upon the economic state of thenation ? Moreover, has the Minister commenced the preparation of a statement,, for consideration by the Parliament, o> measures which are designed to prevent the repetition of such strikes in the future ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I shall make inquiries from the Minister for Labour and National Service in relation to the matters raised by the honorable senator.

page 61

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he is in a position to inform the Senate of the steps that have been taken to deal with the frequently recurring derailments on the Trans-Australian railway, particularly those that have occurred within the last six months, with the consequent complete dislocation of traffic travelling east to Adelaide. Can the Minister also inform the Senate of the precautions that have been taken to maintain the permanent way of this railway in order to minimize accidents and derailments?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The maintenance of the permanent way of this railway is giving the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways continuing trouble and worry. Basically, the weakness is in the provision of suitable labour to carry out the maintenance work. In the past, immigrant labour has been allocated to this job, but it has not always proved as satisfactory or as skilful as is required. At present the majority of the workers on this railway are Greek nationals, many of whom are undertaking this type of work, for the first time in their lives. Recently the work force on the railway was augmented by a number of new Australians from Germany, and the commissioner hopes that this influx will up-grade the standard of labour, and thus improve the maintenance work on the line. I can assure the honorable senator that the matter which he has raised- is under continual survey by the commissioner. Unfortunately, I cannot assure him that the line is maintained in perfect order or at a standard completely satisfactory to the commissioner, but I can say that the difficulty is well known and is kept constantly under survey.

page 62

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator PEARSON:

– My question to the Minister for National Development refers to the water that comes down the river Murray, and it follows on similar questions that have been asked of the Minister. Is there a new agreement in prospect which may be signed by the States of New South Wales and Victoria as well as by the Commonwealth, which will lay down the basis of distribution of the water, and is it a fact that the object of the agreement will be to allot the water between New South Wales and Victoria? If that is so, has the South Australian Government been made aware of the terms of the proposed agreement, and, if not, in view of its interest in this matter, why has it not been consulted? If it is a fact, as Senator Gorton has said, that the Snowy River flows mainly through Victoria, why in the world should New South Wales have an interest in it?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I believe that the honorable senator’s question illustrates the difficulties that may be met with in this matter. There is no secret about the proposals. The distribution of the waters of the Snowy River was decided upon in 1949, and it has been a matter of public notoriety since that time. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority has issued a considerable amount of explanatory material concerning the scheme. I have no doubt that every honorable senator has, during the last six years, had more than one copy of a booklet issued by the authority which shows full details of the water available and how it will be distributed between the various States. There is nothing fresh about -this matter, because everybody interested in it has known all about it since at least 1949.

page 62

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator SEWARD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that all available wheat storage space is now full anr! that unless some action is taken to reduce wheat .production . in the coming season additional storage space will have to be provided before a large portion of the 195C-57 harvest can be received, that is, assuming there is a normal harvest?
  2. If so, will the Minister summon an immediate meeting of the Agricultural Council so that a determination can be arrived at - (o) as to whether the Commonwealth Government will provide the money required to provide such additional storage; or (6) whether the ‘ State Governments will provide such money ?
  3. Is it a fact that such information regarding additional storage is vital to the wheatgrower before he can determine his wheat planting programme for the 1950-57 season 1
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers: -

  1. A survey of the wheat storage position in Australia, which was completed last week by the Australian Wheat Board shows that wheat storage facilities have proved sufficient this season in all States, although a near record crop in Western Australia has created a tight storage situation in that State.

It is too early to forecast wheat plantings for the next season, but on the Wheat Board’s present estimate of sales from now to 30th November, 1950, and given a normal, crop generally next season, then existing storage facilities would appear to be sufficient in all States except perhaps Western Australia. However, a heavy crop in any State and particularly in Western Australia, could upset these calculations, especially if anticipated export sales did not materialize.

  1. It would not be practical to convene an immediate meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. It is the Minister’s intention to call the Council together as soon as possible and he has already arranged for the subject of wheat storage to be listed for discussion at that meeting.
  2. All information available regarding the wheat storage position will be made available to federal wheat-grower organizations. It is not possible to assess what effect such information may have on the planting programme of individual wheat-growers generally.

page 62

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Senator HENTY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report in the Australian press that the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the British Government, is planning to build an aluminium industry in New Guinea?
  2. Has he noticed that the report also states that, owing to the high cost of production at Boll Bay, the present plant will be put in “ cotton wool “ .as a defence reserve once the New Guinea plant is in operation?
  3. Will the Minister make a statement on this report to the Senate at the earliest possible moment?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– I have received from the Minister for Supply the following answer: -

No decision has been made by the Government to establish an aluminium industry in New Guinea. Surveys have been conducted by a company in which the Commonwealth is interested, to try to assess the possibility of the existence of substantial hydro-electric power in New Guinea, sufficient to support an aluminium smelter, if it were decided to build one. These surveys are still going on. A full statement on the matter was made by me in the House of Representatives on the 22nd September last year, in answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Forrest. The suggestion that the Bell Bay plant will be placed in “ cotton wool “ as a defence reserve is without foundation.

page 63

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Is ita fact that hundreds of returned service personnel whose loans have been approved by the department on a set date have been informed by the department that this date cannot be met and the loans have been put back, in some cases up to six months? 2.Is it a fact that this is causing very serious embarrassment to these returned service personnel who have made fixed contracts with architects, builders, &c?
  2. Will the Minister take action to have the payment of loans brought back to their original date in order to save applicants from expense and from legal and other embarrassments?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. It is not a fact that where a definite date for a loan was given that loan has been put back. The fact is that applicants, after approval, are given an approximate date by which their turn will be reached but are in the same communication warned that it might be necessary to vary that date through unforeseen circumstances. The circumstances under which it was necessary to extend the waiting period wore explained very fully by the Honorable William McMahon, Minister for Social Services, in the debate on the Estimates in October, 1955.
  2. Applicants who entered into fixed contracts despite the warning referred to in the answer to 1, would be embarrassed and whilst the division is doing all it can within the funds available to assist such persons, the fact remains that their embarrassment is caused primarily because of their failure to observe the warning conveyed by the division.
  3. The only method by which applicants generally could be given an earlier priority date would be to provide additional funds. The funds made available for 1955-56 for war service homes total £30,000,000, which is equal to the previous record sum made available for 1954-55. The Government has maintained this record provision despite the restrictions which have been necessary in other important respects.

Whilst the Government alwayshas in mind the necessity for sympathetic consideration to ex-servicemen, it is essential in the provision of funds that their requirements should have regard to the overall economic position. The honorable senator is assured that the Government will continue the liberal attitude to ex-servicemen which it demonstrated in a most practical way in the past.

page 63

QUESTION

ICE CREAM

Senator SCOTT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What was the total amount of ice cream manufactured in Western Australia in the following years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55?
  2. What was the total quantity manufactured in Australia for the same periods
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. The only reliable source of information as to the quantity of ice cream produced in Western Australia is the Commonwealth Statistician. As the production of ice cream in that State is practically confined to one manufacturer the supply of information sought would virtually amount to a contravention of the secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act.
  2. The following figures for total production of ice cream in Australia have been supplied by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics : -

page 63

QUESTION

AIR TRANSPORT OF BEEF

Senator BROWN:

– I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport has a reply to a question which I asked last Thursday. My question was -

About twelve months ago a committee was formed to inquire into the transport of cattle or beef by air. I think it was known as a Commonwealth advisory panel. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate say whether that committee has yet concluded its inquiries and, if so, whether it has submitted a report? If it has not done so, is the Minister in a position to say when the committee’s report can be expected?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The body to which the honorable senator refers is the Commonwealth Advisory Panel on Air Transport of Cattle or Beef. .It has submitted a report which has recently been referred to the Minister for Primary Industry and is now being examined by the Minister.

page 64

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE,

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating, in accordance with Standing Order 86a, Senators Arnold, Byrne, Laught, Seward, “Willesee, Wood and Wright as members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Spicer) - by leave - agreed to -

That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed, to consist of Senators Arnold, Byrne, Laught, Seward, Willesee, Wood and Wright, such senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 30a.

page 64

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that the following members have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee : - Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costa, Mr. Falkinder, Mr. Allan Fraser, Mr. Opperman and Mr. Turnbull.

page 64

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that the following members have been appointed members of the Public Accounts Committee: - Mr. Barnard, Ma Bland, Mr. Cope, Mr. Davis, Mr. Hulme, Mr. Leslie and Mr. Thompson.

page 64

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that the following members have been appointed members of the Public Works Committee : - Mr. Bird, Mr. Bowden, Mr. Dean, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Watkins.

page 64

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the appointment of a joint committee on foreign affairs, and requesting the concurrence of the Senate therein, and the appointment of seven members of the Senate to the committee.

page 64

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motions (by Senator MCKENNA agreed to -

That Senator Fraser be granted leave of absence for two months on account of ill health.

That Senator Sandford be granted leave of absence for four months on account of absence overseas.

page 64

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

page 64

QUESTION

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Debate resumed from the 16th February (vide page 51) on motion by Senator Buttfield -

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: - “

Mat it Please YoUR Excellency:

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– When the debate was adjourned, I was speaking of the Government’s alleged concern about the balance of trade and Australian exports. I referred to the rise in .shipping freights about which the Government professed to be gravely concerned last year. The ship ping companies have increased freights on Australian goods sent overseas, and upon imports into Australia, to such an extent that our export market has been crippled. Inflation has forced up our costs of production and this factor. combined with our geographical position and increases of shipping freights, has caused our producers serious embarrassment in competing on the open markets of the world. Although the Government deplored this trend during the closing session of the last Parliament, and stated that it would do something to remedy the situation, there is no reference in the Governor-General’s Speech to this matter beyond a statement that an export insurance scheme will be established. The Governor-General stated -

An export insurance scheme will he established to provide a cover to exporters against certain risks of non-payment. Parliament will be invited to pass appropriate legislation early in the session. Legislation will be introduced as soon as agreement has been reached between all interested parties to give effect to a stabilization scheme for the dried vine fruits industry.

There is nothing new about that. It is open to exporters to insure now if they wish, but if they do the premiums will oe just so much more added to Australian costs. The taking out of policies would give some assurance to exporters that they would be paid but, on the other hand, it is rumoured - and the rumours are supported by a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies)- that the Government will leave Australia poorer in connexion with transport by sea. A hushhush policy has been adopted in connexion with this matter, and Ministers refuse to answer questions upon it in the Senate, but the newspapers openly state that the Government is negotiating for the sale of the Commonwealth shipping line. That statement has not been refuted by the Government. The newspapers claim that the matter has gone beyond consideration. They have stated that negotiations for the sale have already taken place. In the issue of the West Australian of the 11th January, 1956, the following statement appeared: -

Private shipping companies in Australia have been negotiating with the Government for the sale of the £20,000,000 fleet for several years. ‘ They would have to find between £5,000,000 and £7,000,000 between them to take over 49 per cent, interest. During the federal election campaign, Mr. Menzies said the line would bc sold.

That is a repudiation of the promises made to the primary producers and exporters by the Government. If the Government does not measure up to its responsibilities and introduce some legislation to solve the shipping problem, it will not be doing anything worthwhile to stabilize our export industries, and allow primary producers and manufacturers to compete on overseas markets. The Commonwealth shipping line was twice established by a Labour Government, and it has saved Australia from disaster three times. Now it is in danger again of passing out of the control of the nation into the hands of the shipping combines, whose interests are interlocked with the international shipowners who caused us embarrassment by refusing to carry goods at a reasonable rate.

The Commonwealth fleet is the biggest on the Australian coast. It consists of 42 ships in commission and five under charter. They range from coastal traders of 1,650 tons to 10,000-ton ore carriers. Thirteen new ships are under construction in Australian yards and are to be delivered by 1959. The line was established by the Chifley Government in 1947 and, in the first five years of operation, it lost heavily, but last year it made a profit of £370,725. It is the same old story. After the Australian nation has established industries at great cost, and carried them through the developmental period, they are sold by anti-Labour governments. Invariably, those industries then operate profitably for the benefit of private enterprise. I am not referring to an isolated instance. Amalgamated “Wireless (Australasia) Limited rendered great service to this country during World War II., and made excellent profits. That company saved Australia from embarrassment when we were unable to obtain from other countries technical equipment with which to increase our war effort. But this Government subsequently sold Australia’s sound national investment in the company. The Commonwealth’s shareholding in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was ‘probably the only means that the Australian Government possessed during the war of preventing Australia being held to ransom by the large oil companies. Yet this Government has sold our investment in that profitable undertaking. Instead of legislation being introduced so that the Parliament could discuss the merits and demerits of the proposed sale of the Commonwealth’s shareholding in that company, the shares were sold on the open market. That shareholding was our only means ‘of preventing exploitation by the large oil companies. Even though it would be advantageous for the Government to buy back the shares, I do not advocate that it should do so at to-day’s price.

I come now to the whaling industry that was established on the north-west coast of Australia, and which Government experts have reported is operating successfully and paying hansomely. The Government, in accordance with its custom, now proposes to sell that profitable industry to private enterprise. How can the Government hope to convince us that it is really concerned about trade and industry generally while it continues in this way? Unless the Government maintains a controlling interest in certain industries, private companies might find it expedient to exploit them in order to add to the profits of overseas combines. It is a shame that His Excellency, in the Speech that was prepared by his Ministers, threatened u& with these things.

The Government proposes to establish a scheme to provide insurance against non-payment for exports, but it is giving no consideration to the matter of bilateral trade with countries that are willing to trade with us, and from which we could obtain commodities that we need to develop Australia. Italy imports from Australia almost four times as much as it exports to us. Although Australia needs goods that Italy is willing to export to us, this Government, by its restriction of imports, is preventing them from coming in. Equipment and plant that could be obtained from Italy would assist many immigrants to develop Australia. On the other hand, China and other countries need commodities produced in Australia, but for some unknown reason this Government is not prepared to trade with them. For political reasons, the Government refrains from taking advantage of that avenue of trade. That does not mean, of course, that those countries do not obtain the Australian commodities that they require; they obtain them through countries with which we do trade, but at enhanced prices. By its stupid policy, the Government has seriously hampered our overseas trade. The present situation has resulted in some of the big world combines, in which this Government is interested, making increased profits at the expense of Australia’s economy.

Under the Government’s policy, goods are kept in Australia instead of being exported direct to countries that need them, and the combines are thus able to buy on a glutted market. They then send the goods through countries with which Australia trades to countries with which we are not prepared to trade. In the result, the intermediaries make huge profits. But if the Government explained the situation frankly, it would reveal its co-operation with those combines.

In conclusion, I consider that it is vitally urgent for the Government to consider the question of harmony in industry. At question time to-day, Senator Wright sought statistical information as to what the recent waterfront strike had cost Australia.

Senator Mattner:

– That was fair enough.

Senator COOKE:

– Yes, that information should be placed before the Senate. I suppose Senator Wright would also like to know the total amount that the basic wage earners have lost during the five years that the basic wage has been frozen. I should say that at least 50 per cent, of the cost of the waterfront strike came out of the pockets of the waterside workers themselves. Let us consider what they have been cheated of. Counsel appearing before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in the application for the unfreezing of the basic wage has stated that the restoration of quarterly adjustments in accordance with the minimum rates fixed by the court would cost the employers £54,300,000 a .year, and that if the basic wage were increased by fi a week, the additional cost to the employers would be £145,000,000. Those statements are typical of the statements that the court is being asked to accept. In other words, the amounts that I have mentioned would have been paid to the workers, in consequence of the inflationary rise of the cost of living, if arbitration had proceeded normally. If this Government is sincerely interested in the welfare of the workers of this country, it will ensure that the workers are paid the rates of wages approved by the Arbitration Court as being necessary to enable them to maintain the standard of living to which they are entitled. I consider that the Government has been very foolish in connexion with this matter. Had it ensured that the workers were paid legitimate and just wages, in accordance with the increase of prices, the workers would have felt that they were receiving wage justice, and the nation would have been spared the waterfront strike, and saved about £150,000,000 to boot.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I wish to congratulate the Government on the policy that was announced by the Governor-General in his Speech, especially the promise that a committee will be established to consider altering the Constitution, particularly with regard to the relations between this House and the other chamber. In my opinion, very few alterations of the Constitution are needed. I believe that any maladjustment in our relations with the other chamber could be corrected largely by agreement. Therefore, I shall address my remarks, not to the constitutional alterations that are necessary, but to things that we could do ourselves in order to improve the standing of the Senate in the eyes of the community. I regret to say that in my own State of New South Wales the Senate is not held in very high repute. It is in our own hands to alter that state of affairs. During the recess, I spoke a good deal upon this matter, and I also contributed a number of letters to the press. I did at least get the very grudging recognition that the Senate was not wholly useless. But in New South Wales there is naturally a prejudice, because, from the very beginning, the majority opinion in that State held that the Senate was not necessary.

I remember very well an occasion some five years ago, when, on the command of the gentleman sitting in the chair, I was removed from this chamber. I shall not reflect on the justice or the wisdom of that action, but at luncheon I was congratulated by an elder statesman of the Commonwealth, the late William Morris Hughes, who said that he was sure there was more joy over one righteous man who was cast out of this chamber than there was over the 59 sinners who remained. He also said that, whatever inconsistencies might be charged against him, there was one matter on which he had never varied : that the Senate was unnecessary, that it never should have been instituted, and that it was useless. I wish to dispute that contention and also to suggest ways in which we can become very useful.

I am afraid that not many people are familiar with the constitutional position of the Senate, and it is well to go back to the Constitution and see what that position is. This is not, in the ordinary sense, merely an upper house. This chamber is not to be compared with the House of Lords, or with the legislative councils in the earlier colonies and in the present States. In fact, when we read the debates of the Constitutional Federal Conventions we find that there were men who denied that the Senate was an upper house in any sense of ‘the term. They wished it to be regarded as a co-ordinated legislative assembly. There is some warrant in the Constitution for that opinion. Part I. begins -

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall he vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives

There is no mention of an upper chamber, no mention of a house of review, nor is there any attempt in the Constitution to limit the functions of this chamber. Furthermore, section 49 says -

The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom …

That, I must confess, amazed me when I read it. I had always thought that, in some way, this chamber was analogous to the House of Lords. But the fathers of the Constitution had no such intention. They based our powers and our privileges on those of the House of Commons.

If honorable senators look at the limitations of our legislative powers they will find that they are very few. The only one of any moment is that which forbids us to initiate a money bill, a disability that we share with the Senate of the United States of America, which also cannot initiate a money bill. Yet, in the United States the Senate is known to be the more powerful of the two chambers. It is, possibly, the most powerful legislative body in the whole world. I mention that because I think that, if we start from the point of view that we are something like a legislative council, or even like the House of Lords, or that we are a mere chamber of review, we start from a false assumption. If we are going to discuss changes in our constitutional position, we should be quite aware of what we are asked to give away if we are asked to give away anything and we should be very chary of giving anything away.

I cannot applaud the attitude of honorable senators who come here with a state of mind similar to that with which Guy Fawkes approached the House of Commons the desire to destroy it. I know that that intention is, to some extent, imposed on some members of this Parliament, and I know that some of them do not like it. I hope that the party which has that plank in its platform will remove ii. After all, party platforms are not unalterable, and I think the fact that that plank has been in the platform for so many years and that no serious attempt has been made to implement it is an indication that there is not much enthusiasm behind it. in the Labour movement. I hope, at least that that will be reconsidered. I am very pleased to find that although, according to the official view of the Australian Labour party, the Senate is not to be held in high repute, men who wield great power in that party are not ashamed to come into this chamber. I for one, am very pleased to see, sitting on the front bench of the Opposition, a man who, according to newspaper reports, has for many years wielded a good deal of power behind the scenes. I would rather see him sitting there on the front bench of the Opposition than back in Melbourne. There, reputedly, he had power without glory, whereas here he can have both the power and the glory.

But that is not sufficient. I believe that we should all review our ideal of party in the light of the whole history of party. I am not particularly criticising the Australian Labour party today. I think that in all parties there is growing a bad spirit of faction. Edmund Burke, the greatest mind that ever addressed itself to both the theory and practice of politics, held that party and faction were quite dis tinct. Burke was a firm party man, and he advanced what I think is the classic and unanswerable case for the party. He said that the people who attacked party were, very frequently, sinister people who were attempting to introduce another and an evil method of Government. He said that party, in its essence, is simply a body of men and, I would add, women united on some principle to further the national interest. He alsosaid that if a man cannot agree with those in his own party, in nine out of ten cases he has chosen his political company very badly and should leave the party. Burke carried out his own teaching, because after working for many years with a particular group of the Whig party known as the Rockingham Whigs, when he found that he could no longer agree with men like Charles JamesFox and others, he left the party. So he stands as one of the real foundation members of both the great parties that lasted throughout the 19th century in Great Britain.

I say that we can agree on that function of the party. I do not urge the changes that I intend to urge on the ground that this should be a non-party house. It cannot be a non-party house; but I deny altogether that, because it is a party house, it is therefore futile. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted.

Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 3.82 p.m.

page 68

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1956

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · QueenslandMinister for the Navy · LP

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for two additional Ministers, and to increase the annual sum provided for Ministers’ salaries by £5,500. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has proposed, for reasons he has already explained in another place, that two changes in ministerial and Cabinet arrangements should be made one that the number of Ministers should be increased to 22, and the other that the Cabinet itself should be reduced in size.

The need for one of the additional ministerial posts arises from the creation of a new Department of Primary Industry. The other arises from the view that it is better for each service department to have its own separate Minister. For example, the Honorable Josiah Francis was’ Minister for both Army and Navy. This docs not necessarily mean that there shall be three Ministers, each in charge of a service department and having no other ministerial duties, but it does avoid die state of affairs in which one Minister looks after two service departments whose interests are not always the same.

The reduction in the size of the Cabinet has been decided upon to permit greater concentration of discussion and expedition of decision on policy matters. The system to be adopted is something similar to ‘the United Kingdom system. The Cabinet will include twelve Ministers only. Other Ministers will take part in Cabinet discussions when matters concerning their administration are being considered.

These changes make certain adjustments to the Cabinet Fund necessary. Honorable senators will be aware that it is a long tradition that the sum provided for the payment of salaries to Ministers is allotted entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. That tradition, of course, is maintained; but I explain for the information of honorable senators, on the Prime Minister’s behalf, that since 1952, when the Ministers of State Act was last amended, the Prime Minister has arranged the payments to Ministers completely within the spirit of the report of the Nicholas committee made in January, 1952. Since then no review of ministerial salaries has been sought or made. The increase of £5,500 being sought in this bill still comes within the spirit of that report and, in fact, is absolutely the minimum increase by which the salaries recommended by that committee can be paid to the new Ministers. It will also enable some necessary adjustments to be made in the payments to some other Ministers - a need that arises from the new Cabinet arrangement. In no case will a Minister receive more than is recommended in the Nicholas report.

All Ministers in the Cabinet will be regarded as senior Ministers and will, therefore, receive the ministerial salary of £2,250 which that report, which was issued in 1952, suggested for senior Ministers. Other Ministers will each receive £1,750.

The Nicholas report suggested that the number of senior Ministers, apart from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, might be approximately six, but the report made two other relevant comments. It said -

In Australia, every’ Minister sits in Cabinet and there is no official gradation.

This is now no longer to be the case. The report said also: -

The number of senior Ministers would be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

Then it makes the suggestion that the number, apart from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, might be approximately six. The Government believes that, under the new Cabinet arrangement, its proposals are entirely within the sense and spirit of the Nicholas committee report.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- The Minister for the Navy (Senator O’sullivan) has intimated that the bill has two purposes, but it might be more accurate to say that it has three, namely, to increase the Ministry by two, to provide salaries for those Ministers and to authorize additional salaries for four other Ministers. It is allied closely also with a fourth purpose of the Government, namely, to divide the ministerial ranks into two parts, twelve in Cabinet and ten non-Cabinet Ministers.

The proposals are simple in content, but they raise some vastly interesting and important considerations. It might be worth while to note the increase in the membership of Commonwealth Cabinet since federation. Under the Constitution, the number of Ministers was delimited to seven until the Parliament otherwise provided. In 1915, that number was lifted to eight, in 1917 to nine, in 1935 to ten, in 193S to eleven, and in 1941, during war-tune, it was increased to nineteen for the duration of the war - a purely temporary arrangement. That temporary arrangement was placed ob a permanent basis by the Labour Government in 1946. At that stage there were nineteen Ministers, and the Cabinet fund provided for their salaries amounted to £27,650 a year. Since the present Government took office, there have been two changes and the one now proposed is a third. In 1951, the Government increased the membership of the Ministry by one to twenty, and the Cabinet fund to £29,000. In 1952, without a further increase in the Ministry the Cabinet fund was lifted to £41,000 a year. The proposal now before the Senate is that two additional Ministers should be appointed making a total of 22, and that the Cabinet fund be increased to £46,500.

When the latest Labour Government went out of office in 1949, there were nineteen Ministers whose average salary from the Cabinet fund was £1,455 a year. Under the new proposal the 22 Ministers, drawing among them £46,500, will receive an average of £2,114 a year each. That means that there has been an average increase of £659. I am not saying that the amounts proposed to be paid to Ministers are too big. Ministers in this country, particularly in the federal sphere, have probably the biggest and most responsible jobs in the Australian community. For most of them the work is arduous, constant and exhausting. I do not want to be taken as having in this speech launched an attack upon the total fund, or the work of Ministers in money terms. I merely direct attention to the fact that there has been a great increase in the cost of Cabinet government in the federal sphere since 1949 when the Labour Government left office. The total fund was then £27,650. It is now £46,500, an increase of £18,850 a year.

I shall deal first with the proposal in the bill that there shall be an increase in the number of Ministers. On behalf of the Opposition, I say at once that we think that is quite unnecessary. The Minister in his second-reading speech said that the separation of the portfolios of Army and Navy is being made on the ground that the interests of those services are not always identical, and therefore the creation of a new portfolio is required.

I point out that under this Government there are six portfolios dealing directly with defence, with a Minister in charge of each. As honorable senators know, there is the Department of Defence Production, with Sir Eric Harrison as Minister; the Department of Defence, with Sir Philip McBride as Minister ; the Department of the Navy, under Senator O’Sullivan ; the Department of Air, under Mr. Townley; the Department of Supply, with Mr. Beale as Minister, and the Department of the Army, under Mr. Cramer. I note with interest that four of those who might be- called service Ministers are, under the proposals of the Government, to be members of the Cabinet, whilst two of them are not to be included.

Having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is responsible for this change, it is interesting to refer to his comments on the defence portfolios in 1946, soon after the war ended. Looking at the three service portfolios, the present Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, said -

The war ended more than fifteen months ago and I have some little doubt as to whether we need to continue for very much longer, if at all, these separate service portfolios.

Dealing particularly with the Department of the Army, he said -

I am bound to say that if I desired the perfect definition of a “cushy” job, I should like to be Minister for the Army - a disappearing army and a disappearing job.

That left no doubt at all that his mind was firmly fixed upon the amalgamation of the three service portfolios. I point out that at the time he suggested that amalgamation the cold war was developing and before long had reached an acute stage. Honorable senators will remember the Berlin airlift, when certain nations were bumping one another very hard. Indeed, it required only one extra bump to precipitate another world war. Yet, on the eve of those developments, it was the considered opinion of the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now Prime Minister of this country, that the portfolios should be amalgamated. His argument to-day for separating the Army from the Navy - they were combined for a considerable time - is that the interests of the two departments are not always identical. I submit that it is very much easier for one mind, that of one Minister, to resolve differences of interest between two departments of that nature, than it is for two separate Ministers to do it, because each one naturally contends as hard as he can for what he believes to be the interests of the department under his control. The Opposition does not accept the reason given as a good and valid one. We suggest that the Government could, with advantage, combine the service portfolios. If that alone were done, there would be no need to create two more portfolios. There cannot be much reason for failing to amalgamate the portfolios of Defence Production and Supply. Those two departments could very well be combined under one Minister.

But that does not exhaust all the possibilities. There is no reason why the precedent set by a Labour government could not be repeated by combining the departments . of Social Services and Health. I remind the Senate that they were combined under one Minister at u time when there was tremendous activity in both departments. It was a very formative period, when many schemes of social services and health benefits and advantages were in process of being born and developed. If that could be done then, in the formative period, how much easier would it be to combine them now, with the two departments more interlocked than they were then. When I refer to interlocking, I think of the fact that the Social Services Department enters a field which deals with allowances for patients suffering from tuberculosis. I suggest to the Government, which professes to be concerned with effecting economies and providing for the most efficient administration, that it would be better to combine portfolios like that, rather than set up two more portfolios at this stage.

It is interesting also to recall what the Prime Minister said on the same occasion about the Postmaster-General’s Department. Here are his words -

But I have yet to learn that,’ to be PostmasterGeneral, and nothing else, is a heavy job, because, on the whole, I would think that the Postal Department was best run by a Postmaster-G’eneral who was deaf and dumb. The Postal Department in this country is a business concern which, fortunately for us, has been most admirably managed by most able men for a long time. The PostmasterGeneralship can be regarded at the moment as a sinecure.

That was in 1946, and there has been no vast change in the department in the interim. If that was the considered opinion of Mr. Menzies at that time, I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to tell us what has happened to cause the Prime Minister to change his mind. If it was his view that the job of Postmaster-General was a mere sinecure, why was it not attached to some other portfolio as an appendage? That has not been done, and I should like to know what has occurred to change the mind of the Prime Minister in the matter.

Reverting again to the service departments, I shall make reference to the Depa.rtm.ent of the Navy, and to what the present Prime Minister had to say in relation to it. On the occasion to which I have referred the righ honorable gentleman waxed quite humorous at the expense of that portfolio. He went, so far as to invoke some lines from the Gilbert and Sullivan opera, HM.S. Pinafore : -

Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,

And you all may be Rulers of the Queen’s Navee !

When I contemplate the position to-day and find that the present Minister for the Navy was formerly the Minister for Trade and Customs - now bisected into two separate portfolios - and I find that he has not stuck to either of them, I realize that it takes an O’sullivan to confound Gilbert and Sullivan. The Prime Minister did not content himself with that humorous reference. He went on to say-

As Minister for the Navy he will not die of overwork. He will probably die of inanition, whilst two or three other Ministers will run a reasonable risk of departing this life through overwork.

In the light of what the Prime Minister had already said in all these matters, it does behove the Minister in charge of this chamber, on behalf of that same individual - the Prime Minister of Australia - to indicate what has caused him to change his mind. After all is said and done we are in peace-time to-day and not at war, and I put it seriously to the Senate that a very good answer must be given to the argument that under modern (Conditions the three service portfolios anight well be combined in a Ministry of Defence and that the departments of Production and Supply might, with equal advantage to the country, be combined also,

Now I come to the Department of Primary Production. I say at once that I think that is a portfolio which is needed. T can imagine nothing more vital in this country than the work of primary production. In fact, our whole economy swings upon it and I cannot argue against the establishment of that portfolio. I am simply arguing that if the adjustments I have already indicated, or some of them, had been made, there would unquestionably be no need for the. creation of two new portfolios. So, one looks for the reason underlying the action of the Government. Presently, I shall show that it is not the mind of the Government but the the mind of one man in the Government, and the only conclusion I can come to is that one of the reasons for the creation of the new portfolios is that they have been forced by recalcitrant backbenchers who have expressed time and time again their dissatisfaction with the Menzies Government. What do we find. Seven of them have been given a sop. Room has been made for them. They have been given a sop, and, at the same time, have been handed an insult. They are admitted to the Ministry, but they are told that they may not participate in Cabinet.

Let us consider the whole seven of them. There is the new Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer), the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr. Osborne), the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Fairhall), and the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton). Each one of them is a new Minister and each one of them is relegated to the rank of non-Cabinet Minister.

Senator McCallum:

– Every one starts in a job as an apprentice.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I shall deal presently with what I consider will be the stresses and strains which will be set up in this country because of that approach. I am not dealing with that aspect at the moment. The Prime Minister, when he made those alterations in the Cabinet, made the following comments in a press statement on the 10th January last: -

I have felt that the circumstances of to-day require very wide reconstruction, the introduction of relatively new members of Parliament who can contribute fresh experience and energy.

Fresh experience and energy! Where that is needed is in the Cabinet itself, the place where policy is determined. But what does the Prime Minister do? Having co-opted this fresh experience and energy he immediately battens it down in watertight compartments, puts them in match boxes. I would indicate to the Senate that from the experience I have had over a number of years in the Cabinet one cannot tell from the portfolio a Minister holds what contribution he has to make to Cabinet. I remember very well that Ministers not immediately concerned with particular submissions but blessed with highly critical faculties and acute minds probing and analysing a Minister’s submission most thoroughly. They soon discovered whether a Minister was merely voicing sentiments and ideas prepared for him by departmental officers, and whether his own mind did not run with the submission. That type of thing might arise with new Ministers. I suggest that it would arise from that source. What is the use of invoking new experience and energy if one declines to use it ? In any event how can the Prime Minister determine whether they have new experience and energy unless he constantly sees them in action before him in Cabinet? How can they develop and utilize their experience and energy? They will have the right to attend Cabinet meetings when their own matters are under discussion, but they will have no other right to do so. Their other right will depend upon an invitation, and I shall refer presently to the terms of the invitation on which alone they may attend the Cabinet.

Now, I desire to say a word about the cost of the two new portfolios. It is set out in the speech, and it is well understood to be £3,500, the amount of the salaries of the new Ministers. However, that is not the beginning and the end of the matter. When two new departments and two new portfolios are created we all recognize that with the new Ministers go secretaries, typists, stenographers and the rest. The new departments will need new staff ; they will need new office accommodation and new office equipment. I have no hesitation at all in saying that the proposals of the Government contained in this bill, if we knew their full extent, will cost the country many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and that the salaries to be paid to the two new Ministers will be a relatively infinitesimal item in that cost.

Senator SPOONER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– How could that happen ?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– It must happen. There are to be two new Ministers. Does the Minister for National Development deny that there must be two new personal staffs? Does he deny that those shift’s must travel?

Senator Spooner:

– Are they not travelling already?

Senator McKENNA:

– They are nonexistent at the moment because they have no Minister. There will be two new Ministers with two new staffs. I recognize, of course, that there will be savings in some respects as the result of the transfer of departments such as the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. Something will also be sliced off the former Department of Trade and Customs, just as something will be cut off the Department of the Interior. However, I say that it is up to the Government, instead of focusing on the mere cost of ministerial salaries, to look at the broader aspects and tell us what the actual cost will bc, either approximately or estimated. The country is being misled when it is told that the sole cost will be £3,500. It will be nothing of the kind. I am prepared to say that the cost will bc hundreds of thousands of pounds by the time it is all finished.

Senator Spooner:

– Nonsense !

Senator McKENNA:

– I have no doubt at all about it. I recognize that some of the cost will be offset. Two entirely new departments are to be created, but I concede that there will be savings in some respects. Another thing is that I cannot imagine worse timing in precipitating these changes. At this moment the country is in the gravest economic difficulty. What is the position facing the country? Rising costs are pressing us out of world markets. Inflation is unhalted, after going through a tremendous spiral, and is still on the move. We are suffering calamitous losses in our overseas balances. We have had severe import cuts that have affected supplies of materials, in some cases of the kind required to enable manufacturers to keep operating at full capacity. We are unable to sell our wheat on the world markets. Yet this is the moment that the Government has chosen to make the Cabinet changes under discussion.

I am not objecting to the Ministry for Trade. I think it is good. I do not object to the Ministry for Primary Industry. I think that is desirable, too, but these arrangements should have been made long ago. The Government should not have waited until an absolute crisis in our affairs had developed. There will be complete chaos in matters affecting both those departments until the transfer of staffs is accomplished, until those departments have settled down with welldefined policies, and until commercial circles in Australia have developed confidence in their abilities and policies. This Government has always been too late! It always closes the door after the horse has bolted. According to a press statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) on the 10th January -

There will be some other re-allocation of function as between departments, details of which will be announced shortly.

We have not seen the end of these changes. I could not imagine a worse piece of timing than the decision to make these changes now. By the time the changes are completed, this Government will have superimposed chaos on top of the confusion that now exists in the commercial world.

I wish to comment on. another aspect of the bill, and to criticize the allocation of Ministers between the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have always thought it was wrong that, having regard to the numbers in the two Houses, the Senate should have such poor representation in the Ministry. The House of Representatives has twice the membership of the Senate, but as the Ministry is constituted at the moment, the House of Representatives has three times as many Ministers as the Senate. I do not believe that is proper, or that it makes for good administration.

Senator Scott:

– How many Ministers were senators before 1949?

Senator McKENNA:

– I referred to that matter at the beginning of my speech. Five senators have been in the Cabinet for many years. There have been five since before 1949. There were five in 1941. There are still five, and the number has been left at that level far too long.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

at the quality.

Senator McKENNA:

– I propose to say something about that, too - after having looked at it. The proposal before the chamber is that there should be 22 Ministers, and the allocation between the two Houses is still to be seventeen to five. In other words, the two new Ministers are to come from the House of Representatives, and this chamber is to be left with the completely improper allocation of five Ministers. When this Government was first elected to office, there were five senators in the Ministry of nineteen. On the basis of 22 in the Ministry, there should be at least six Ministers in this chamber. The allocation says very little for the influence Government senators have upon the Government, for they have been, unable to persuade the Government to appoint one additional Minister from this chamber. The Senate is entitled to know whether the Ministers in the Senate or their supporters made any effort to win one new portfolio. If they did make an attempt and failed, will they give some indication to honorable senators why their request was rejected?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) join us?

Senator McKENNA:

– Indeed, I would. The view I take is that if Government supporters in this chamber failed in such a move, they allowed the Government to bring the Senate into some degree of contempt. I shall refer again to the Prime Minister’s statement of the 10th January when he announced the new basis of a Cabinet of twelve, and the appointment of ten Minister^ without Cabinet rank.

I wish to refer to the aspect which affects this Senate. At present, the Senate has three Ministers in the Cabinet and two who are not in it. Coming to the question of quality, I say that all Ministers in this Chamber have been pathetic in the past in the performance of their duties when they came to dealing with matters arising under the policies affecting the departments administered by Ministers in the House of Representatives whom they represent in this chamber. They have been pathetic despite the fact that they were in the Cabinet when all those policies were established, and even when they had a hand in shaping them.. What is the position now in the Senate? Two of our Ministers will attend Cabinet only when matters affecting them will be receiving attention. They will represent House of Representatives Ministers in this Cabinet without any knowledge of the background leading to Cabinet decisions, policy decisions and all sorts of major matters. How are they going to justify policy and explain the facts when they have no hand in discussing or shaping those policies?

I conclude on that particular aspect of the matter by pointing out that whereas Ministers placed in that position have been pathetic in the past, they will be quite hopeless in the future under the proposed arrangement. As this system develops, we shall see what amounts to further contempts of this chamber. Having regard to the allocation of portfolios and the large number of Ministers who are to be represented in this chamber by as few as five Ministers, I say it is .unquestionable that every honorable senator in the Ministry ought to be in the Cabinet.

I wish to refer now to the proposal by the Government to divide the Ministry into two classes - a Cabinet of twelve and ten non-Cabinet Ministers administering departments. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) has said that, in doing so, the Government is doing something similar to the practice that is followed in the United Kingdom. The two cases are not comparable. In the first place, the jurisdictions of the two parliaments are entirely different. Complete power is vested in the United Kingdom Government. Only limited powers are vested in this Parliament. There is no comparison whatever in the scope of the matters to receive the attention of the two parliaments, between the populations of the two countries or between the functions of the Ministers in the two countries.

In the United Kingdom, there are 38 Ministers and eighteen are in the Cabinet. Twenty are not. It is clear that a meeting of 38 would be almost in the nature of a public meeting and quite unwieldly, but the United Kingdom Government does not hesitate to have eighteen Ministers in the Cabinet. It does not find that number unwieldly. There is a difference also in another important aspect. The Cabinet system in the United Kingdom is based, among other things, largely on the fact that there are five or six Ministers without portfolio. They are men of special skill and experience who are able to preside over Cabinet sub-committees, attend inter-departmental matters and resolve conflicts. They have time to think about and to shape policy. They arc leaders of thought in the Government and of the party. ¥e have nothing comparable to that arrangement in Australia.

If honorable senators examine the appointments that have been announced by the Prime Minister, it would appear that the right honorable gentleman is the only one without a department, but that is not true, either, because he administers the Prime Minister’s Department in which there is a vast amount of detailed work, including supervision of the Public Service Board and all its activities. The Prime Minister of this country has very decided and heavy departmental responsibilities. The cases are not, as I have said, comparable in the slightest degree.

There is a further point of difference between Australia and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, there are parliamentary secretaries, but we have none in this country. I point to this factor : the human element cannot be denied in any situation. I . suggest that Ministers who are kept out of the Cabinet will be resentful and jealous of their ministerial colleagues who have been preferred by being included in the Cabinet. There must be for the former a degree of indignity and subjugation to authority, and they might well believe the arrangement to be a blow at Cabinet solidarity and responsibility, particularly when all the ten Ministers not in the Cabinet are expected to accept full responsibility for all the decisions which they had no band whatsoever in shaping. And I have not heard any argument in justification of that. No decision of Cabinet is made in a hurry. Such decisions are reached over a long period of testing and probing, and men not in the Cabinet will find themselves in grave difficulties in respect of many measures. The proposed division of Cabinet is alien to the Australian nature. Ministers will have the feeling that the hand that elevated them to the Ministry might with equal ease demote them at any time. T suggest again that that does not make for Cabinet solidarity and responsibility, and for teamwork, which is so essential if there is to be good government.

I direct attention to one other thing which concerns me - that is, the undemocratic way in which these changes have been brought about. They have been brought about as though this were a oneman government. Again, I invite honorable senators to refer to the Prime Minis ter’s press statement of the 10th January. Listen to this: He said - and I invite honorable senators to notice the “ I “ -

I have decided to adopt something like the United Kingdom system of having a Cabinet which includes certain Ministers and of having other Ministers, not in Cabinet, who will be responsible for the administration of their own departments … I will also have the right to invite to a Cabinet discussion any nonCabinet Minister who has special knowledge or experience on the particular matter under consideration.

N o, not the Cabinet may invite one of the unlucky ten; it is a matter for the Prime Minister. .He has made it very clear that he alone will have the right. Let me read on. “I” runs all the way through the document -

In order to render this system fully effective [ will invite the Parliament to alter the Ministers of State Act to provide for two additional Ministers.

I ask the Ministers in this chamber : Was there no consultation in this matter with the Government parties? Were they not consulted in the matter.

Senator Guy:

– Of course there was consultation.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I think the honorable senator means that they have given the Prime Minister a complete and overriding authority to do as he likes. Or do I understand him to say on thi3 question of the division of the Ministry into two sections, the appointment of two more Ministers, and the rest, that the Government parties were consulted?

Senator Kendall:

– We were told that an alteration was to be made.

Senator McKENNA:

– Senator Kendall says that they were told. That is the very point I am making; they were not consulted. This is a most unsuitable imported method, designed in. my view not for the good government of Australia, but for the greater power and aggrandisement of the importer. Some great minds have addressed themselves to this problem of the smaller Cabinet. I should like to quote from Mr. Harold J. Laski’s book Parliamentary Government in England, on page 248 of which he deals with the problem. Talking about the smaller Cabinet, he said -

But as a peace-time expedient, it is, at the best, dubious. It is built upon a theory of the possibility of separating policy from administration which is unworkable except under the pressure of such an urgency as war. Departmental ministers cannot be relegated to a secondary place if they are to run their departments efficiently, for the simple reason that their relegation results in the erosion of responsibility.

That is exactly what this proposal does to the ten who are not of the Cabinet. The passage continues -

Mon of the standing of ministers, moreover, cannot effectively control their policy if the power to make decisions is one in which they do not share. The unity of policy which the theory postulates disappears because policy is the expression of an accumulation of minutiae with which the non-departmental minister does not concern himself; and, further, the policy of one department shades off into the policy of another, so that joint consultation becomes imperative upon a scale fatal to the ideal functioning the system conceives itself to embody.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Attlee did not take much notice of that.

Senator McKENNA:

– Oh yes, he did ! He has expressed views on it. I also refer the honorable senator to Herbert Morrison’s article on the smaller Cabinet. After some fourteen years’ experience of government, he declared it to be a failure, and gave his reasons for that opinion.

I began to search for what probably animated the Prime Minister in making the allocation. I inquired whether the allocation was made in the Cabinet according to the importance of the departments, and I immediately ruled that out, as I think every other honorable senator will when he sees that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) is included, but the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) is not - the fundamental portfolio of primary industry is not included; when Shipping and Transport, which is equally vital, is not; when the Postmaster-General’s Department is excluded, and when Customs and Excise is excluded. Nor is it justified on the relative importance of departments, because the Department of Territories is included, but the Department of Primary Production and the Department of Shipping and Transport are excluded. So that is not the principle upon which the Prime Minister is proceeding. T should say also that the division has certainly not been made in accordance with the size of departmental salaries. The Senate may remember that only last year departmental heads were classified into two categories, according to their importance. The Postal Department, which was put in the top grade, is not now represented by a Minister in the Cabinet; Commerce and Agriculture has gone out; it has been divided into two parts - Trade, and Primary Production. One half is in, and the other half is not. Trade and Customs has been dissected. and Customs arid Excise has gone out of the Cabinet field. So what is the principle? 1 invite the Government to let the Senate know what is the principle upon which this division has proceeded. There were private conversations to which I would have liked to listen. I should have liked to hear what the Army chiefs said when they found that the Minister for the Navy and the Minister for Air had been included in Cabinet, but that their Minister had been excluded. Equally, I should have liked to hear what the chiefs of the Naval Board said when they heard the Prime Minister’s opinion of their department and the burdens of their Minister in 1946. So what conclusion can I come to ? I find no principle upon which the division was based, and I can only conclude it was a case of arbitrary selection of persons by the Primp Minister. I frankly wonder that Australians who are concerned with democracy tolerate a position in which the Ministers are chosen by one man; where their portfolios are allocated by one man and arbitrarily divided into two categories - some in the Cabinet and some not in the Cabinet. It really surprises me that there are Australians who will put up with that. I shall begin to develop some respect foi- Government supporters when they take into their own hands some control of these matters.

Perhaps, there is another reason why the Government wanted to reduce the size of the Cabinet. I think that it wanted to break the control of the Australian Country party. We find the very interesting position that the Australian Country party now has only two representatives in the Cabinet of twelve. The others we find reposing gracefully amongst the departmental Ministers. That may well be the position, and I invite the Leader of the Government to indicate whether my suggestions concerning the basis of the division are accurate or not. I certainly can find no principle for it. I concede that the Prime Minister, in making a distinction, must, of course, have regard to the public standing of the men concerned, and also to their personal qualities, but I think it is competent for the

Minister in charge of the bill to inform the Senate what principle was chosen in determining the allocation. In my opinion, the grave and fundamental error in making the division is the attempt to dissociate policy and administration. Those two things are inseparably associated; one grows out of the other. The view that I take is that any effort to separate them must lead to disaster.

What is wrong with the Cabinet system of committees? Right throughout the war, with a Cabinet of nineteen, the Labour Government functioned very efficiently, with committees of the Cabinet to attend to matters of interdepartmental significance and matters of special difficulty. Those committees were able to co-opt experts in the particular fields, and I cannot remember an occasion when a Cabinet sub-committee, having .addressed its mind, perhaps over a long period, to a problem, had its recommendation rejected. That system worked very well then, and it could work very well now. The system functioned efficiently when there were nineteen Ministers, when the Australian Government had vastly expanded functions under the defence power and was in practical charge of almost every activity in Australia. The defence powers at the present time have gone back to their proper perspective. The Government has not as many and as diverse activities and burdens as that War Cabinet had. I commend to the Government a thought on the wisdom of returning to that, system.

Now, I come to the proposal to increase the Cabinet fund. The proposal is that the two new Ministers shall receive £1,750 each. I have no quarrel with that. There is also a proposal to give an additional £500 each to four more Ministers. I have no quarrel with the total emolument that that will make. My quarrel is entirely with the fact that there was deceit and suppression on the introduction of this measure to the Parliament of the country. It was clearly misrepresented, in express words, that the additional £5,500 was for one purpose and for one purpose only. If there is any doubt about that, let me read the following paragraph : -

The increase in the number of Ministers will involve a consequential addition to the annual sum set aside for Ministers’ salaries, aud the bill provides for this increase. The amount of the increase is limited to the minimum needed to provide salaries under the arrangements now proposed.

That, plainly, kept from the Parliament the knowledge that additional moneys were to be paid to Ministers other than the two new Ministers. I think that every Minister and every member of the Government parties must accept vicarious responsibility for that grave misstatement. I think they ought to tell us who was responsible for it and how it came about. They also should explain why’ in respect of a measure of this nature, which is not urgent, as I shall show in a moment, the Government sought, on top of that misstatement and its misleading of the Parliament, to gag the measure through on one day in the first week of the Parliament.

These matters not only require explanation but positively demand it. On behalf of the Opposition, I make that demand. How did those things happen ? I suggest that the Government is left in an exceedingly bad light. It failed to explain in the Parliament, when the bill was introduced, that there were to be four Ministers receiving additional amounts; the exact contrary was affirmed in the speech that was made. I think that that is a deplorable thing from the viewpoint of any government. It is destructive of all faith in Cabinets and Ministers, and I hope that presently we shall hear from the Leader of the Government how exactly those things came to pass.

Now let me ‘point to the lack of urgency in the matter. The two new Ministers are waiting to be sworn in. I regret their personal plight, but the Government is in no difficulty. The VicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production (Sir Eric Harrison) is controlling the Army, whilst the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), in the meantime, is controlling social services, so that the work is going on. The one difficulty, so far as the new Ministers are concerned, is that they cannot be sworn in and cannot get their Ministerial pay. As I say, I am sorry for them, but after all is said and done, is it so desperately urgent that they must be sworn in and paid in circumstances in which the Government is obliged to mislead the public and gag a bill of this nature through the popular House of the Parliament during one day of the first week of the session? I suggest that that is most reprehensible. The Government’s action has been resented by the press and the people of Australia in a very high degree. The Government made the gravest blunder in this matter and I think that, in its own justification, it should make perfectly clear to the people of Australia how those things came about.

I come now to the four Ministers who are to get £500 each, two of them being Ministers in this chamber. I confess I was amazed to find that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) was regarded as a junior minister, for the purpose of salary. In my opinion, that was an insult to his office and to this chamber. I should have regarded the AttorneyGeneral of any government as at least the No. 3 man in the Ministry. That, T believe, is the popular view. I am completely staggered to find that the Government thought otherwise. None of us begrudges the additional payment to the Attorney-General or to the Minister for National Development, another important portfolio. We think that the Minister for National Development should be elevated to the rank of senior Minister. I would even favour a further increased payment to Ministers, commensurate with their responsibilities. But having regard to the way in which this matter was sought to be introduced, we shall record a very strong protest by voting against the whole of the measure.

Now that the matter has been dragged into the light, the Government seeks to cover its flank. We heard the Minister this afternoon invoking the Nicholas report as the justification, and citing extracts from it. But there is no escaping the basic thought in the Nicholas report. Its authors said there ought to be senior and junior Ministers. They thought there ought to be six, but left the discretion to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister exercised that discretion by lifting the number to eight, but he has more than overstretched his discretion by proposing to lift the number referred to in the Nicholas report to twelve.

Senator Pearson:

– Ten.

Senator McKENNA:

– I stand corrected. Even if the figure is ten, the Prime Minister has unduly stretched the spirit of the Nicholas report.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– “We live in changing times. The honorable senator may not be aware of that.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, we do live in changing times. All I hope is that there will be a speedy change in the policy that has dictated the division of the Cabinet of this country into two parts.

For the reasons that I have given, and particularly because of the circumstances in which this measure was introduced to the Parliament, the Opposition will oppose the bill by voting against it at all stages. There are various questions that arise from what I have said. We are particularly anxious to have answers from the Minister, if and when he makes a reply to this debate, and so that those questions will not be overlooked, I have, taken the trouble to have them typed out, and I now hand a copy to the Minister. They are as follows: -

  1. Who was responsible for the Government’s misstatement, on the introduction of this measure to the Parliament, that the sum of £5,500 was the minimum needed to provide salaries for two new Ministers?
  2. Upon what principle, if any, was the division between Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers effected?
  3. Apart from additional Ministerial salaries, what will be the estimated or approximate costs of creating two new portfolios in - (a) Ministerial personal staff; (6) travelling expenses of Ministerial staff; (c)’ departmental salaries; (d) office accommodation and equipment?
  4. Why waa not at least one additional Ministerial portfolio allotted to the Senate?
  5. What effort, if any, did members of the Government and Government supporters in the Senate make to secure such allotment?
  6. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister alone determined the division of Ministers into two categories as well as the allocation of Ministers to the categories?
  7. What arrangements, if any, have been made to ensure that non-Cabinet Ministers in the Senate will be able to handle properly matters affecting departments administered by Ministers in the House of ^Representatives whom they represent in this chamber?

Senator Scott, by way of interjection, doubted the accuracy of the quotation I made in my first question. So as to remove all doubt, and for the benefit of the honorable senator, I propose to read the exact words that were used in another place when this measure was being introduced, and then read my first question again.

Senator Scott:

– The honorable senator will be out of order in quoting what was said in another place.

Senator McKENNA:

– I will not join issue with the honorable senator on that point at this stage, hut I undertake that he will lose if he raises it. The quotation is -

The increase in the number of Ministers will involve a consequential addition to the annual sum set aside for Ministers’” salaries, and the bill provides for this increase. The amount of the increase is limited to the minimum needed to provide salaries under the arrangements now proposed.

The proposals outlined in that speech made not the slightest reference to salaries for Ministers other than the two new Ministers. The question I ask is -

Who was responsible for the Government’s misstatement, on the introduction of this measure to the Parliament, that the sum of £5,500 was the minimum needed to provide salaries for two new Ministers?

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I support the bill, and invite the attention of the Senate to one or two constitutional points that should be kept well in mind. The Constitution lays down that the number of members in the House of Representatives shall be twice the number of senators. Another provision, contained in the second part of the Constitution concerning executive government, relates to the appointment of officers to administer the departments of State, and it is provided that these, within a certain time, must be elected to either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Under Section 65 of the Constitution, as laid down more than 50 years ago, until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Ministers of State shall not exceed seven in number. Obviously, it was contemplated that, from time to time, Parliament would provide for a variation of that number. It has always been contemplated that, under the Constitution, the number of Ministers might be altered according to circumstances.

It is interesting to note that under section 69 of the Constitution the functions of the Australian Government in those days were limited to the administration of posts and telegraphs, telephones and naval and military defence, and there is a reference to customs and excise. Consequently, there is nothing unusual or unnatural about the bill. I cannot understand why Senator McKenna should object to the increase in the number of Ministers from twenty to 22. I acknowledge that in his very able speech, he referred to the tremendous importance of the tasks of Ministers. He described their work as the biggest and most responsible job in Australia.

The honorable senator then proceeded, in a most amazing manner, to criticize the bill and to recommend a vote against it. I remind honorable senators that the annual budget of the Commonwealth is more than £1,100,000,000, and, as the Constitution provides, these servants of the Crown constitute the directorate of a vast organization. This country is developing, not only in population, but also in primary and secondary industries, and new horizons and markets are continually revealing themselves. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a speech made in 1946 in another place by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, but the amount of work performed by departments in those days was very different from that which they now undertake, because then much of the ministerial organization was channelled through national security regulations. At the present time, matters such as trade, commerce, social services, immigration, and the Commonwealth (Scientific and Industrial Research Organization are administered in another way. There is no comparison between the methods of administration in 1946 and those of the present day.

The Leader of the Opposition criticized the timing of this proposal, and said that Australia was now faced with economic difficulties. He criticized also the proposed change in the structure of Cabinet. I cannot follow the honorable senator’s reasoning. If there are difficulties, although they may not be so great as the honorable senator suggests, it is highly desirable that important departments should be re-organized. The Leader of the Opposition said that some of the alterations proposed in the bill should have been made long ago, but he recommended also that Parliament should vote against the measure. I agree with some of the criticisms of the honorable senator, and in regard to other matters that he mentioned I would be prepared to go further. The Senate has an obligation to examine parts of this bill critically, although generally we are prepared to support it.

I have no difficulty in wholeheartedly supporting the proposed rise in salary of £500 for the four Ministers who will he members of the senior Cabinet. I am prepared also to adopt the idea that there should be a senior Cabinet of twelve and that the remaining Ministers should have no Cabinet rank. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition admitted the importance of the office of the AttorneyGeneral, and I support the suggestion that he be included in the senior Cabinet. He is the technical adviser of the Cabinet. Other Cabinet Ministers need not have a technical knowledge of their departments, but the Attorney-General must be an eminent lawyer. The Australian Government is fortunate in having such a person as the present Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and when the Australian Labour party held office it also appointed men of distinguished legal achievement to that high office. If this bill does not become law, we should continue the preposterous position that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth would be paid a salary of £3,500 a year, whereas the permanent head of his department, a public servant, is paid, according to the Estimates which we passed about six months ago, £5,500 a year. It would be a standing disgrace to the Senate if it voted against this bill, thereby deciding that the AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth should not be paid more than £3,500 a year. As the

Leader of the Opposition said, the position of Attorney-General of the Commonwealth could well be the third position in the Cabinet, especially when we remember that we work under a federal system, and that the Cabinet must have at its disposal at all times sound advice on many matters, particularly matters of constitutional importance. I could go on in this way, and speak of other Ministers who are being elevated to senior positions, but I shall confine my remarks to the position of Attorney-General. I feel that this is an important matter.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I was disappointed to find that the Senate has been relegated to a position further back than previously in the matter of its voice in the Cabinet, and in the Ministry. For a number of years South Australia had two Ministers in the Cabinet; now it has only one. There are in the Senate twenty senators from South Australia and Tasmania. There are no Senate Ministers from those States and Senate Ministers can have only the sketchiest knowledge of the affairs of these States. That is a bad thing. I feel that in a Ministry of 22 members, five Ministers from the Senate is too low a proportion. The fact that the number of members of the House of Representatives must be approximately twice the numbers of senators surely suggests that in a Ministry of 22 members, the Senate should be represented by one-third of that number, or say, seven Ministers. However, we find that when the Government decided to increase the number of portfolios from twenty to 22, both of the additional portfolios were given to men in the House of Representatives. As senators, we should view with alarm the fact that important portfolios have been withdrawn from this chamber. When we met here last year, two important portfolios were held by members of this chamber. One of them was the position of associate Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, which was held with distinction by our late esteemed colleague, Senator George McLeay. Apart from being a great South Australian with an intimate knowledge of South Australia, Senator McLeay was a man who could answer questions in the Senate on those important phases of Australian life connected with the portfolio of Commerce and Agriculture. At that time, too, the esteemed Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator O’sullivan), held the portfolio of Trade and Customs. I do not know why those portfolios have been taken from the Senate, but I register my regret that that is the position to-day. As I have said, until this latest change was made, five of the twenty Ministers sat in this chamber; to-day, the number is still five, although the Ministry has been increased from 20 to 22 members. The loss of important portfolios is something that the Senate should view with regret. However, all is not lost. The Senate can still be the guardian of the work of all Ministers. This chamber has the power to disallow regulations made by Ministers, and so I say to honorable senators that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is in the position to watch the work of all Ministers, both old and new, and if thought necessary, to challenge what they do.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, 1 am particularly interested in the new portfolio of Primary Industry. The representative of the Minister for Primary Industry was good enough to furnish me recently with information relating to the functions to be carried out by the holder of that portfolio. The letter commences by pointing out that “ pending the determination of the Government of the specific and detailed functions and responsibilities of the Department of Primary Industries, it is not possible, as yet, to provide a statement of them in full and final form “. I issue a warning concerning this new department. I regard the Constitution as something that preserves to the ‘ States certain sovereign powers. I recognize that the Commonwealth has powers over trade and customs, commerce and marketing, but when we come to the term “ industry “ 1 wonder how far the power of the Commonwealth extends - whether it covers primary, secondary and tertiary industries. Therefore, I say that we, as senators who are charged with certain responsibilities to the States that we represent in this chamber, should watch with great car;> the way in which this new department grows. We can rest assured that, having been born, it will grow. The new department can do valuable work for the Commonwealth, provided that it works within the compass of the Constitution and does not disregard the very good work which has been done, and is being done, by the respective departments of Agriculture working within the boundaries of the several States.

Having expressed those views, I now add that I shall support the measure. L think it is a sign of progress and is in keeping with Australia’s progress. In my opinion, we would be niggardly in the extreme if we voted against any of the emoluments set out in clause 4. The Senate has had a full and ample description of the bill from the Minister who introduced it. I concur in the view that in another place an adequate description of the bill was not given to honorable members. However, we in this chamber should be thoroughly satisfied with what the Leader of the Government told us when he introduced the bill in the Senate this afternoon.

In conclusion, I congratulate the appointees to these new positions, and wish them well. At the same time, I assure them that the Senate will be forever watchful of their ministerial work. We should not lose sight of the fact that the legislative machine in the Commonwealth consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives, and that senators and members should ever be watchful of the work of the Executive and see that it functions according to the spirit of the Constitution.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– I confess that when I came into the Senate chamber this afternoon to discuss this bill I had 24 complaints to voice. However, after the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) had spoken for about an hour, I found that the complaints that remained for me to voice had been reduced to about four. Therefore, I wish to thank him for the way in which he dealt with the bill to-day.

The substantial complaint which I believe I have is that there is paucity of information supplied by the Government to this chamber in regard to the provisions of the bill. I know that the bill contains only two or three small clauses, and perhaps the Government considered that because the bill was so brief it would be justified in saying very little about it. But once again may I refer to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, because he covered that point rather carefully and extensively. I believe that when a bill of this nature is before the Senate it pays the Government to be forthright about its provisions and to explain it fully.

Many things are designed to happen under the authority of this measure when it becomes law, and a good deal of review work was necessary on the part of anybody who desired to find out what was really behind the bill. That was necessary because there was no great wealth of information supplied to the Senate, and one was left to imagine what the bill really meant and what it covered. However, it is a dangerous thing to leave the provisions of a bill of this nature to the imagination of honorable senators, because they can imagine many things. Getting down to hard facts, we realize that the bill does provide for making more money available to some Ministers, and also that more Ministers are to be appointed. Those two points are quite clear, but there are many other things associated with this bill. While the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, a short time ago, an honorable senator on the Government side mentioned apprentices. He asked why the apprentices should not be given an opportunity. That rather impressed me. The Government, some time ago, appointed parliamentary under-secretaries. They were appointed to help Ministers carry out their work, and one should have thought that, in the ordinary course of events, when there was a vacancy in the Ministry, one of those “ dilutee “ Ministers - if I may so describe them - would have been appointed. So, if there is to be any dissatisfaction with the new ministerial arrangement, one would expect it to stem from these three young and energetic under-secretaries. who, according to my observation, have applied themselves assiduously to their duties. They have done their utmost to learn all that they could about the departments to which they have been attached; but now they have been completely passed over and another three gentlemen have been appointed to the Ministry.

Mention has been made of the fact that amongst some members of the House of Representatives, who are referred to as backbenchers, there has been some uproar and a clamour for Cabinet changes, although there is no evidence that they have been seeking an increase of the number of Ministers. It does appear that the more vociferous and dissatisfied a member of the Parliament is in this regard, the greater is his chance of being appointed to the Ministry. That appears to be quite clear in the light of what is to be done under this measure. In trades and professions when persons are being appointed to positions, their qualifications have to be carefully considered. I do not know whether the qualifications of the new Ministers were considered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), because he seems merely to have made the appointments, and that was that. Nothing has been said to us about the qualifications of the appointees and it is surprising to me, and no doubt to every average Australian, that the three under-secretaries have been completely by-passed.

I now wish to deal with ministerial salaries. We have heard on various occasions from honorable senators on the Government side, that incentive wages are good. Those honorable senators wish to promote the system of incentive wages, and they encourage the establishment of incentive wages in industry. Perhaps incentive wages are good if they get good results, but why does the Government not establish an incentive salary for Ministers? Why does it not start incentive schemes in its own sphere? If we are to apply incentives in a practical way, we could start with my very good friend the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), who, I think, is number sixteen in the Ministry. Perhaps we should say to him, “ If you go through a period of twelve months without having a single strike on the waterfront we shall increase your salary considerably “. That would be one inducement to the Government to establish an incentive scheme. Or perhaps we could apply piece-work rates to the whole of the Ministry. We could consider our diminishing overseas balances, and say to the whole of the Ministry, “ We shall pay you a piece-work rate for every £1,000,000 by which you increase those balances “. If we did that I am sure that there would be no shirking at all by the members of the Cabinet.

However, when we consider the salaries, the expense accounts and the other emoluments that go with ministerial office, we perceive a certain danger. To-day, industry is becoming more and more highly mechanized and the trend is to get a robot to carry out duties whenever it is possible to do so. Some operations, which a few years ago required the employment of twenty or thirty hands are now carried on automatically. Perhaps there is a great danger that if we continue to increase the size of the Ministry, some one will invent an electronic Minister who will carry out the whole duties of a Minister automatically.

I have no doubt that all the gentlemen who comprise the Ministry are very patriotic men, are imbued with a high regard for their duties, and have a national spirit which enables them to do many things in the interest of the nation. If they have a true national spirit they might undertake their work without any extra pay at all. In the Ministry selected by the Prime Minister, we have two divisions, and when we are dealing with divisions we immediately think of a country race meeting where there are races for horses of four, five and six years of age, which previously have not won a race. In the Ministry we have a first division and a second division, and, looking down the list of Ministers to see where our friends in the Senate fall, we notice that not one Senate Minister appears until we come to number eight. Then honorable senators (fill positions nine and ten. We skip positions eleven and twelve, fill number thirteen, and find that the Minister for Shipping and Transport fills number sixteen position.

Senator Grant:

– It seems to be a matter of weight for age.

Senator BENN:

– That may be so, but I have a suggestion to make. Canberra is the national capital of Australia, and it is visited by thousands of people each year, particularly when the Parliament is in session. They will be at a considerable disadvantage if they come to the Parliament and are unable to distinguish the Ministers. They would like to recognize them very easily, and I suggest there should be some mark of recognition worn by each Minister. For instance, why cannot each Minister have a number on his right arm, or on his back like a footballer, showing what his position is in the Cabinet? I think that would be very appropriate. Then, when a Minister was walking across King’s Hall a visitor from Adelaide, or Western Australia, who is not familiar with the Parliament or with parliamentary procedure, could look at a Minister and say, “ There is No. 9, that is the AttorneyGeneral “. Programmes could be sold at the entrance of Parliament House. It would be a splendid idea if that were clone, and furthermore, it would increase the revenue of the country. Failing that, of course, a colour scheme could be introduced and I leave it to Senator Cole to suggest some colours. A red jacket could be worn by one Minister, and another Minister could wear a white jacket for purity, or a pale pink or yellow jacket, and so on until we got down to a green jacket. Senator Cole might suggest the appropriate colour to be worn by each Minister.

Unfortunately for me the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has voiced most of the complaints I had in mind, and left me with only three or four. I am happy that the Government has got down to earth in this bill, and has become forthright so far as the establishment of the Ministry is concerned. I am not one to quibble about the Ministry being increased. I have had experience in governmental services and I hold the opinion that the Minister who carries out his duties in a workmanlike way, and who is prepared to apply himself .to his daily chores, is entitled to very penny that is paid to him. As a matter of fact he would be underpaid. To obtain better administration we must, first, select able Ministers and then pay them a proper salary. I do not say that any one member of the Ministry is overpaid because I have not had an opportunity of examining his administrative work. Each Minister has a whole field of administrative work to cover provided lie does not sit in his office and merely sign letters written for him by clever public servants. If he does that, then he is not worth his salt.

We must bear in mind all the time that so far as a department is concerned the Minister is the administrator of it. If serious mistakes are made by his department he is answerable in the ordinary train of events to his Prime Minister; but the people of Australia will hold him responsible for any errors of judgment that he makes. Therefore, a. Cabinet Minister holds a very responsible position and no pay is too great for him provided he undertakes to perform all the work that be should carry out. Every document that a Minister examines becomes a responsible document which requires some direction and action. Therefore, he is loaded with work. We might be able to disparage some Ministers, but even so, if we dissect the whole of the Cabinet it must be recognized that there is still ample work for 22 Ministers in the Commonwealth Parliament. I honestly believe that. If I were allotted the task of creating portfolios I would probably raise the number to 27 or 28. Then, if I were appointed Lord High Executioner, I would be able to see that each man carried out his work and earned his salary. Unfortunately, in the present set-up, there is no authority over a Minister excepting that of the Prime Minister. A Minister states the policy of his ‘department and instructs his officers to follow it. He oan merely sit in his office and sign thu correspondence and require things to be attended to.

It is possible, of course, to make comparisons between the Cabinet of this country and those of other countries, but when one does so, one must take into consideration the civil servants of each country. I do not think that in Australia we have the highly-trained technical civil servants that Britain has. Again, in connexion with administrative affairs, there is a geographical difference between Britain and this country. Take, for instance, the office of the Minister for Territories. His head-quarters are in Canberra, but the Territories include the Northern Territory, Papua and New Guinea and other places. He must know what is going on in those parts.

As I said a while ago, I am happy to know that the Government has faced up to the situation and is taking a realistic view of the Cabinet and the work that has to be performed in the interests of Australia. I support the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and I intend to vote in the way that he suggested members of the Opposition will vote on the measure.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I support this measure. I am amazed at the two speakers from the Opposition side and the different views they have expressed on the measure. First, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator MeKenna) stated his reasons for opposing this measure. He thinks an increase from 20 to 22 Ministers is far too great and, in fact, he would rather see a decrease. On the other hand, Senator Benn said he would . like to see the Ministry increased to 27 or 28.

Senator Benn:

– I said that I would do that.

Senator SCOTT:

– Where does the Opposition stand in this matter? We have heard only two speakers, but their viewpoints differ. We heard a long speech from the Leader of the Opposition in which he quoted the numbers of Cabinet Ministers in the various parliaments since federation* He said that in 1941 the Ministry was increased to nineteen and that in 1956 it will be, if this bill is passed by this chamber, increased to 22. In fourteen years there has been an increase of only three in the number of federal Ministers. Yet we find that the amount of money that the Ministry is administering has increased from £150,000,000, which was the amount of the budget in 1941, to £1,100,000,000 in this year’s budget.

Senator Wedgwood:

– And there has been a population increase of 1,000,000.

Senator SCOTT:

– Not only has the Ministry an additional £950,000,000 to administer, but the population of Australia has increased by almost 2,000,000 in that time. Australia as a nation is growing, and as it grows it will .require more and more administration. Whether that administration is carried out by a Cabinet of twenty, and more work is put on their shoulders, as the .revenue increases and as our population increases, remains for the various governments to decide, but I am pleased that our Prime Minister has decided at last to increase the Cabinet to 22. In his wisdom, the Prime Minister has decided to appoint an inner Cabinet of twelve and an outer Cabinet of ten Ministers of State.

I direct ‘the attention of honorable senators to the second-reading speech delivered by the present Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on the 24th June, 1941, when the right honorable gentleman recommended that the number of Ministers of State should be increased from twelve to nineteen. At that time, there were four assistant Ministers and the right honorable gentleman stated that he believed, after further discussions with Cabinet, that there should be an inner Cabinet and an outer Cabinet. That was fifteen years ago. Now the Prime Minister has decided to give that arrangement a trial. I believe that he has taken the right step. Surely a small inner Cabinet of twelve Ministers can make decisions much more quickly than a Cabinet of 22. In deciding on policy we want quick decisions. Many propositions go before the Cabinet. If each of 22 Ministers were to give his views, much longer time would be occupied in their discussions. The proposed arrangement has that in its favour. The discussions will not be so prolonged. I was a member of a local authority for a long time before I was elected to this Senate. In Western Australia, the numbers of members who constitute a local authority range from five to eleven. It was found in that State that the most efficient boards were those with five, seven or nine members. Those with eleven members took much longer to get through their work.

I was interested to note that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) apparently opposes an increase of salaries for Ministers. He said that in 1949, each member of the Cabinet received £1,455 on an average, and that they would now receive £2,114. He objected to the increase of £659, which is the average increase for each member of the Cabinet. Those increases have been given strictly in accordance with the terms of the Nicholas report. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber has received an increase of £700 in his salary over the past twelve months. That rise was not spread over a period of seven years. TEe Leader of the Opposition’s allowance above his ordinary salary has risen from £300 to £1,000. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives has had an increase from £600 to £2,750. or an increase of £2,150.

We have no cause to complain about the proposed increase of salaries for Ministers. I know that honorable senators on the Opposition side have read in the press that there is a split in our armour. They have been trying to widen that split, but their arguments here fall by the wayside, just as they did in the House of Representatives, because the Prime Minister in his economic statement to the nation last year said there would not be an increase of salaries for members of the Parliament other than Ministers until the end of this financial year. That is quite true, and we stand by it. The Government stated that if a member of the Parliament were promoted, he would be given a just remuneration for his promotion. The Government proposes to appoint two new Ministers of State and their parliamentary salaries will be increased by £1,750 a year. The Ministers who were already in the Cabinet, but who have been promoted to the inner twelve and who will decide the policies of the Government, are to receive an increase of £500 a year each. Who will cry about a paltry sum of £500 each for four Ministers who are to carry out the functions of members of the inner Cabinet? Each will be one of twelve men in charge of a budget of more than £1,100,000,000. No one in private industry to-day receives less than do our Ministers of State who perform important national duties and decide the. policy that will guide this nation in the future.

Senator Critchley:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SCOTT:

– I heard an honorable senator on the Opposition side say, “ Hear, hear ! “ I am astonished that honorable senators on that side of the chamber should say jointly that they disagree with the proposed amendments to the principal act. Only two alterations are proposed. Section 4 of the principal act is to be amended by increasing the number of Ministers of State, in effect, from twenty to 22. Section 5 of the principal act is to be amended by increasing the relevant amount of £41,000 for ministerial allowances to £46,500, a paltry increase of £5,500. That is what all the fuss is about. Honorable senators on the Opposition side agree that two new Ministers should be appointed, and that they should receive an extra allowance of £1,750, making a total of £3,500. What is the reason for all the fuss over thcdecision of the Prime Minister to promote Ministers to the inner Cabinet and to give each of them an increase of £500 a year? This measure as it stands is not designed to increase the salaries of private members or Ministers of State. It provides only for an increase of salaries for promotions. Senator Benn said he believed that a person should be paid for the work he did and that Ministers of State had -a great responsibility to the nation. I agree with every word he said on those lines. I think that Senator Benn’s reference to one or two of the Ministers was his idea of a joke. But this is a serious bill and we, the leaders of the nation, will be responsible to explain the reasons for its various provisions to our electors. But how can we do that in view of the attitude of the Opposition? Honorable senators opposite are striving to drive a wedge into a split in the armour of the Government parties. Surely they are capable of selecting more appropriate occasions for that purpose. We are considering what is a relatively small matter of the provision of £2,000 in a budget of more than £1,100,000,000. How ridiculous it is for honorable senators opposite to speak against this measure, when they know that they are not really opposing it. Although they hope to split the Government parties, I am sure that all supporters of the Government will agree with my contention that we stand united - or almost united - behind our leaders in relation to this measure. I feel quite confident that it will be passed by the Senate.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– This hill, if it does anything at all, reveals the failure of the present Cabinet to deal with the economic position that is developing. As we know, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), after consulting the Cabinet, appointed a committee of professors, bankers, economists and representatives of commercial interests to advise the Government what it should do. That was an admission that the Government did not understand the position that was developing, and had no idea what to do to remedy it. The position to-day is similar to the position that arose in 1941. The Government is divided against itself. When the Menzies Government was defeated in 1941 and a Labour government was elected, the economy of the country was in a chaotic condition. History could repeat itself. The Labour Government found it necessary to reorganize the economy in order to achieve an effective war effort. I was appointed Minister for Aircraft Production in that Government and, upon taking up my portfolio, I discovered a chaotic state of affairs within the department. Men who were occupying very responsible positions told me that I could not do this, that and the other thing. I told them frankly that unless they met me in conference to discuss various matters, I should have no alternative but to report the facts to the Parliament. Ultimately, a conference was held. It lasted from 3 o’clock until 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Some of the ultra-intellectuals who participated have since passed on. As a result of that conference there was appointed an aircraft production advisory committee, composed of representatives of all sections of the department. We did not ask professors to assist us. The work of re-organization was done by men who had been frustrated by the previous Government. Eventually, we restored order out of chaos. A similar si orv could be told in relation to practically every department.

As I said at the beginning, this bill convinces me that the Government does not understand how to deal with the present situation. It is merely an effort to bring about a better state of affairs, but I do not think that that result will he achieved. On the contrary, I am convinced that the state of our economy will deteriorate under the present administration. The Cabinet has never taken any effective action to check the drift in our economy, particularly to halt inflation. We have been warned of the possibility that something serious will happen. I have no doubt that under this Government something serious will happen to the economy. If it does, the members of the Government will run for cover, Just as did the members of the previous Menzies Government in 1941. This Government has failed to organize effective teamwork in its own ranks, which indicates quite plainly that the members of the Cabinet are not fitted to occupy their present positions. I am not concerned so much about the additional expenditure that will be involved by the proposed enlargement of the Cabinet, because I consider that competent Cabinet Ministers and senior officials occupying responsible positions are worth their money; if they are not competent, they are overpaid, and if they are incompetent they hinder the way of progress. When Labour came to office in 1941, it was found in the Postmaster-General’s Department that there were no reserves of telephones and other essential equipment. The cupboard was bare, so to speak. In order to accelerate our war effort, it was necessary for us to improvise and make use of substitutes. In my opinion, great credit is due to the responsible departmental officers of that time. They knew what should be done and, with the support of the Labour Government, they did it. When important matters arose in the department that I administered, I called all of the senior officers into conference and discussed them fully. Subsequently, interdepartmental conferences were held, and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) hasstated, the Labour Government successfully organized teamwork. Such teamwork is not evident in the present Government.

In my opinion, this bill to provide for two additional Ministers and an increased appropriation for ministerial salaries amounts to political bribery. In effect, the Government has said to the proposed new Ministers, “ We will give you ministerial jobs provided you keep quiet “. Supporters of the Government have referred to claims that have been made by Communists and waterside workers. I believe that the most audacious Communist is a mere amateur compared with some gentlemen that I could name, particularly the Prime Minister himself. Let us make no mistake about that. He could be classified nr. an ultra-egocentric, who tries to make people believe that he knows everything about everything.

Sifting suspended from 5.29 to 8 p.m.

page 88

TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to Standing Order 28a, I lay on the table my warrant nominating Senator K. McC. Anderson, Senator A. Hendrickson, Senator T. M. Nicholls, Senator J. O’Byrne, Senator R. W. Pearson and Senator I. A. C. Wood a panel to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees or when the Chairman of Committees is absent.

page 88

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator CAMERON:
LP

– Prior to the suspension of the sittingI had referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) as an “ ultra-egocentric “. I did not mean that expression to be taken in a personal way, nor did I use it with any desire to be offensive. As I see it, either the Cabinet as a whole, or the majority of it, is regardedby the Prime Minister as consisting of mental dependants on him, or mental followers of himself. I base that opinion on the position to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred this afternoon. The statement of the Prime Minister in this connexion used the expressions “ I shall do this “, and “ I shall do the other “. He did not say “ The Cabinet will do such and such “, or “ The Government will do such and such “, but “ I shall do it “. I suggest that if he had a Cabinet which possessed initiative and knowledge, the right honorable gentleman’s attitude would be very much different from what it has been in the past. In that event, he would have used the collective pronoun instead of the singular pronoun.

In politics, there are really no great men. The leading men in politics are dependent on the team. If the team is weak, in nine cases out of ten the leader also is weak and egotistical. That state of affairs also applies in other walks of life. For instance, a general in an army cannot be a successful general unless he has under him well disciplined men who are enthusiastic and determined to do the job that has to be done. The same thing applies in business and in the trade union movement. There are no really great leaders in the trade union movement. Everything depends on the team. If the team is enthusiastic and determined, then all the so-called leader does is to express the ideas and the determined policy of the team.

Senator Maher:

– And the team would not be worth a cracker without a good leader.

Senator CAMERON:

– When the honorable senator learns to speak clearly, slowly, and convincingly, he will be understood. Until he does so, I suggest that he can be properly classified as a political animated noise.

This Government is faced with a serious position, much more serious, in my opinion, than was the position in 1931, and just as serious as that of 1941. If we throw our minds back to 1931 we shall remember that what was done then is being done now. When the governments of that day were faced with a serious position they delegated, as much a.3 possible, the responsibility of deciding what should or should not be done to persons outside their own ranks. In May, 1931, the professors, men without responsibility, not the Cabinet Ministers, decided what they thought should be done, just as they are doing now. From May 25 until June 11, 1931, the heads of the governments, State and federal, confered and decided unanimously to adopt the opinion of outsiders. Because they lacked initiative, determination and knowledge, they accepted outside opinion. What was the result? A depression ensued.

Now, in 1956, history is repeating itself. Outsiders are being consulted. The Cabinet, which poses and postulates, is merely the mental follower and the dependant of the so-called learned professors and the bankers. Unless the mem- bers of the Cabinet have the requisite knowledge, audacity of purpose and determination to do the job that should be done, they are destined to be discredited, just as the members of the Cabinet were discredited in 1941. The Government proposes to increase the size of Cabinet and also to increase the payment to the members of Cabinet. I do not object to the increase of payment at all. What I object to is incompetent men being appointed to responsible positions. The Government is faced with a serious position, and all it can do is to come to the Parliament and say, “ We want two more members of the Cabinet to do what we cannot and dare not do ourselves. We also want authority to pay them the money to which we think they are entitled “. That is what this legislation amounts to.

Where the team fails, the Government fails. The failure will not be the fault entirely of the Prime Minister. Instead, it will be the fault of the team. To judge by the apologetic attitude that honorable senators and members of the House of Representatives have adopted in this matter, it seems that the team has failed because it is lacking in knowledge, courage and audacity of purpose, and that it is unable to do any better than it has done already. I have pointed out that in 1949, when the Government was first elected, it said that it would restore value to the £1. The members of the Government parties also said that they would stabilize the economy. Instead of those things having been done, the value of the £1 has continued to decline, and the Government has been helpless to prevent it from doing so.

For all practical purposes, the real government behind the scenes is not the Cabinet but the bankers and monopolists. They determine the Government’s policy, together with the shipping combine and the other combines to which honorable senators on this side of the chamber have referred. The Government in this Parliament is simply the political management committee for those interests whose aims and objectives are not those of the people but those of the major monopolies particularly. The Sydney Financial

Review, of the 16th February last, contains a report that 949 companies have had a return representing 18.7 per cent, of their capital. That is a colossal profit made possible only because the Government has given them such favorable treatment. By contrast, in Victoria alone, there are 8,000 families living in hovels, and the Victorian Housing Commission has apologized to the people because it has not the money to provide better accommodation for them. Their condition is the very antithesis of that of these wealthy business concerns. I mention these things not merely for the sake of opposing the measure, but in order to challenge the Government to do the job that it has promised to do.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- The debate has recently deviated considerably from a discussion of the small bill now before the Senate. This debate was inaugurated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in a speech which at least dealt with the bill itself, though that is the only feature of the speech that I can find in my heart to commend. I wish to examine some of the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition to justify the threat that the Opposition, as a whole, would vote against the bill. I hope that I may be corrected if I am considered to be unfair, but it is true to say that the main reason given by Senator McKenna, which he emphasized as the particular ground on which the Opposition would vote against the bill, was that the Opposition protested against the way in which the bill was introduced in another place. He objected to a bill appropriating money being placed before one House of the Parliament, and, as he said, “gagged through very quickly “. In point of fact, it was not gagged through very quickly. The original intention, as expressed by the Leader of the Government in that House, was to gag it through quickly, and. I can find in my heart to agree entirely with the objection of the Leader of the Opposition to such a course. However, the honorable senator then went on to say that the speech with which it was introduced in another place by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) was entirely misleading and did not, in fact, express the purposes for which this appropriation was being made.

To justify his point the Leader .of the Opposition read a part, but a part only, of the speech made by the Treasurer. It is fair to study the speech as a whole. It is very short, and I propose to read extracts from it. It begins -

The purpose of this bill is to provide two additional Ministers.

That is clear and informative enough. Then it goes on -

The Prime Minister lias already explained to the House that two changes in ministerial and Cabinet arrangements should be made.

That is, first, that the number of Cabinet Ministers as such should be reduced and, secondly, that two extra members should be introduced into the Ministry. In other words, the whole system of the Cabinet was to be re-organized, and there were to be twelve Cabinet Ministers as distinct from the present system. Then the Treasurer went on -

The amount of the increase is limited to the minimum needed to provide salaries under the arrangements now proposed.

Both those arrangements he had touched on in explaining the bill, and one of them had been explained to the House earlier in the session. I do not think that that speech could possibly be regarded as objectionable because it was brief, and even if it were that would be a very meagre reason why this House of the Parliament should object to the passage of the bill. There can be no objection voiced to the manner in which the bill has been introduced in this chamber, and no objection has been voiced. The Senate has been given, scrupulously, the benefit of every possible parliamentary privilege in the discussion of this measure. The speech introducing it clearly and definitely set out the exact reasons for the bill.

I should imagine that the Opposition in this House and, indeed, all honorable senators would see in this measure a great justification of the second chamber system. But the Leader of the Opposition has raised objection to this measure being passed into law on the ground that it was not properly discussed, but was “ gagged “ through in another place. Certainly it has been properly discussed and considered in this House, and that is a matter for congratulation rather than condemnation. No honorable senator opposite could sustain a contrary view. Honorable senators are called upon to devote their attention to the provisions of the bill rather than to raise opposition, based on an- alleged occurrence entirely outside this House.

The bill is very short and simple. It provides for two new junior Ministers to be added to the Cabinet. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues press their opposition tothat proposal. They have referred to a speech made ten years ago, under entirely different circumstances, by the present’ Prime Minister. If that is the sort of argument they advance against this proposal, it is easy to point to the precedent established by the Labour party, which increased the number of Cabinet Ministers when Labour was in office. In point of fact, every sensible Australian must know that as more powers and responsibilities devolve upon the Australian Government, and as the population of the country grows and the calls upon the Government increase, so will the Cabinet and also the Parliament grow in order to cope with the increased responsibilities with which they have to deal.

The next ground of complaint is that there should not be, as it were, an inner Cabinet, with senior Ministers, and another group of junior Ministers outside. Perhaps these two groups might be described as “ angels “ and “ Ministers of grace “.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– “Angels and archangels.”

Senator GORTON:

– That is a fair description. I do not know why objection should be taken to that proposal. I thoroughly and completely support, it. It has been alleged that this proposal has been forced upon the people by the Prime Minister. For years it has been urged by private members, who support the Government, on the ground that an inner Cabinet could devote greater time to the discussion of policy which can be, and should be, in many cases, divorced from administration, as is the practice in any large business concern.

What else remains as an objection to this bill? It is the proposal to appropriate money to pay not only the two new junior Ministers, but also four other Ministers who have been advanced in seniority. This has been very loosely referred to as “ a rise in salary for Ministers “. That is not a proper description. Parliament has had the benefit of deliberations of an arbitrator, as it were, in the Nicholas report, which laid down a scale of salaries, which that independent authority thought proper for the Prime Minister, Treasurer, senior Ministers and other members of the Ministry. From time to time people change from one status to another. As I look across the chamber I see a new deputy leader of the Opposition. Under the Nicholas report, a certain salary scale is laid down for the holder of that position.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– No.

Senator GORTON:

– If that is not so, there ought to be a scale of salary laid down for the holder of that office. I put it to honorable senators that changes have been made and may be made from time to time. In order to get on completely firm ground, let me suppose that there is a new Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. In that event, he would receive the appropriate scale of salary for the office of Leader of the Opposition laid clown in the Nicholas report. He would not be given a rise in pay. The new leader would be a senator who had been promoted by his colleagues to the position, and he would draw the salary appropriate to it. That is absolutely all that is proposed in the bill now before us. Certain persons have been made junior Ministers, and four previously junior Ministers have been made senior Ministers. Although I do not believe that those new senior Ministers will actually do any more work than they did previously, there does now devolve upon them a responsibility in connexion with the entire policy of the Government of this country. As new senior Ministers they are now entitled to draw the scale of salary laid down in the Nicholas report for senior Ministers. That is an entirely different matter from a salary rise.

Senator Grant:

– According to the press, the honorable senator was the chief opponent of the proposal now before us.

Senator GORTON:

– When I hear that still small voice coming from the other side of the chamber I always close my ears, because I do not want them to be defiled. Insofar as I have been able to do so, that is the way I view this bill. I shall summarize my attitude towards it in a few words. The bill provides for two new junior Ministers, which I believe is something that is entirely justified. It provides also for the appropriation of money to pay those two new Ministers at the rate laid down in the Nicholas report for junior Ministers. Provision is contained in the bill also for the appropriation of money to pay four new senior Ministers at the rate laid down in the Nicholas report for senior Ministers. I do not believe that there can be any proper objection to the bill, and I am sure that any objection there may be to it should not be based upon certain happenings in another place.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
In addressing myself briefly to the measure before the Senate I say, first, that, in my opinion, the debate has gone along certain lines since the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna · South Australia [S.24].

spoke ; there has been an attempt to cover up the unsatisfactory way in which the measure was introduced in another place. I do not think that any member on the Government side of the chamber will disagree with me when I say that had the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) been present in the House of Representatives when the bill was introduced there, the present situation would not have arisen. I do not want to be misunderstood, and so I say at once that, in my opinion, no Minister and no member of this Parliament receives a remuneration commensurate with the importance of his duties.

I attack this bill from a different angle altogether. It is a measure which provides for the appointment of two additional ministers, and also for increasing the annual sum provided for Ministers’ salaries by £5,500. In the course of the second-reading speech by the Leader of the Government in this chamber, who introduced the bill, the Minister pointed out that in the new set-up the Cabinet would consist of only twelve Ministers and that the remaining ten would take part in Cabinet discussions only when matters concerning their department were being considered. It is because of that provision that I oppose the measure now before us. I do so because I have yet to be convinced that the Minister for Repatriation in any government should play second fiddle to any other Minister. This National Parliament has an obligation to every section of the community, but it has a special obligation to men who are in hospital as a result of their Avar service, and also to their wives and children and others dependent upon them. In expressing the view that it is wrong to relegate the Minister for Repatriation to a junior position in the Ministry, I am sure that I am expressing the view of the Australian people as a whole. I say further that it is not right that two of the most important posts in the Ministry - I refer to the portfolios of Shipping and Transport and PostmasterGeneral should be held by junior Ministers who are allowed within the precincts of .the marble hall of Cabinet only when affairs dealing with their departments are being considered. That is especially so when we reflect on the importance of the departments controlled by those Ministers, and their influence on the development of this country. No one in this chamber will convince me that that is other that a retrograde step, and I am sure that when the true position becomes apparent to the Australian people, and they realize that Ministers in control of important departments have to go cap in hand to the inner Cabinet to obtain funds to enable their department to function properly, they will express their disapproval. On those grounds I am completely hostile to the bill. Little did I think that I would live to see the day when an Australian government of any political complexion, would relegate the Minister for Repatriation to a position inferior to that of other Ministers, and treat him as a junior Minister.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– This bill, which has been introduced early in the life of a new Parliament, is one which, if viewed aright, should transcend all consideration of party politics. In the three years that I have been a member of the Senate this is the first opportunity I have had as a senator from Tasmania to express publicly my opinions concerning Cabinet and the general set-up of the Ministry, and the salaries of Ministers. It is a bill of great importance because it could give rise to a debate on what, after all, is the heart of government. Under our system of government in this country much depends on the proper functioning of the Cabinet system. This measure does not merely validate the wishes of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) as to who, and how many, should be in Cabinet. It gives an opportunity to the National Parliament to put forward suggestions, if it has any, as to how and in what way the cabinet form of government could be improved. This is our forum of debate, on such matters, and we should put forward our views on that basis.

The story of this bill’s passage through the Parliament is one that we in the Senate should remember, and whose importance we should realize. It indicates the value of the bi-cameral system of government. If there had been no Senate in existence this bill would have been pushed through in another place on Wednesday night and would have become law on Thursday morning. That was the possibility ; but because there was a Senate the Government listened to, and took notice of, the three alert men of principle in another place who protested against the haste with which this measure was being put through the Parliament. The Government realized that there was a Senate which could defeat this bill. The existence of the Senate meant that there were 60 senators able, if they so desired, to return to their electorates over the week-end and ascertain public opinion on the matter. They could find out the opinion of a cross-section of the community that sent them to Canberra. The Government knew that this public opinion could be raised in protest or in praise of the measure. It knew that in a democracy the people in Australia have the right to express their views and if possible, not by intimidation but in a fair manner, urge their members of Parliament to take appropriate action. I went back to Tasmania somewhat puzzled in my own mind as to whether this bill was for the good of Australia and whether the extra amount of money was an amount in respect of which I could with my vote say, “ Go ahead and spend it “. The existence of the Senate has given us opportunities of that kind.

In my own judgment of public opinion, I noted that the sensation-loving press gave headlines to the fact that in another place the three members I have referred to had been men enough to stand up and by their votes indicate their disapproval of what could be fairly termed as bullying tactics in rushing through a measure of this kind on the first day of the sittings of a new parliament. I am prepared to agree to the increase in the number of the members of the Cabinet, but I. deprecate the fact that we are asked to agree to this measure in this manner. It would have been far better, to my way of thinking, if the Prime Minister had not named his new Cabinet, but had given notice to the Parliament that when Parliament met he would introduce a measure to increase the size of Cabinet. In that event, we would have had this bill before us not knowing who was appointed, but knowing the wishes of the Prime Minister and the Government ; and we could have voted for it. Now, if we delay the passage of this bill we shall accept a serious responsibility, because we know that there are two members of the Parliament who have been appointed Ministers but who cannot act as such and cannot receive the right and just emoluments of their office until this measure becomes law. That is a weakness in the manner in which the Government acted. There was undue haste. When I speak of haste, I must ask, if there war the necessity for the haste that was mentioned in another place, why did not the Senate meet on Tuesday, which is its normal appointed day of meeting? I say that simply because I feel that it is not the principle that is wrong but rather the hasty and immature way in which this bill has been brought before the Parliament. However, it has been beneficial in that it has given us an opportunity to express our views on the set-up of the Cabinet form of government as we know it.

We are asked to increase the number of Ministers by two. I am prepared to agree to that, but I suggest to the Government that in the months that lie ahead it should look at this position fairly closely. The Government knows more about this matter than does any private member or private senator. But is it necessary to have five Cabinet members out of 22 looking after defence? Is it necessary to have a Minister for Defence and a Minister for Defence Production ? Why cannot an examination be made of departments that should rightly come under one Minister? Could it not be - I would think most wisely - that the Minister for Repatriation could look after war service homes? He would be a most appropriate Minister to look after that most important function of administration in the Commonwealth. Then, we have a Minister for Supply, a Minister for National Development and a Minister for Defence Production. They are all very important, but I suggest that a very thorough examination of those positions might lead to a better joining together of those important functions and, perhaps, a reduction of the size of the Cabinet.

There are other spheres and departments that directly concern the National Parliament. I refer to education. I presume that every honorable senator has received requests from educational authorities, unions and associations urging the appointment of a federal Minister for education. I am not prepared to say that we should have such a Minister, but I am prepared to say that there is some common sense in that suggestion and that it should be given full consideration. We should consider nation-wide education with the Commonwealth Government providing the funds, raising the loans and making the grants. Perhaps, it would be beneficial in the carrying out of a nationwide educational policy if there was one Minister clothed with that authority. There are, too, some extraordinary aspects of education. There is the very good work of the Lady Gowrie child centres which is, in essence, education. It is the research centre in Australia for teaching and experimenting in the education and welfare of very young children. That function now comes under the “Minister for Health, hut I think it is not out of the way to suggest that if there were a Minister for education that great work could be undertaken by him and it would then probably get more consideration, which it deserves, than it receives at the moment. I put these suggestions forward in the hope that the set-up of the Cabinet in the future, the organization of departments under this or that Minister, will be given consideration with a view to seeing that the most appropriate form of Cabinet administration shall be brought into being.

There is one point upon which I do desire to express an opinion which will not be popular ; but I mind that not at all. We have been told that, from time immemorial, the custom has been to have a fund called the “Cabinet Fund”, which is administered by the Prime Minister, and from which amounts are paid to Ministers in junior and senior categories. There is no mystery about it. I believe everyone knows what the senior Ministers get and how much the junior Ministers receive, but the payments were-neve made the subjects of legislation. Wo know what the highest public servants are paid because we pass the laws or approve of the regulations under which they are paid. Every Australian has a right to know what I receive as a member of the Senate, and they do know because it is prescribed by law.

It is time that we put Cabinet on the same basis. The people who pay the taxes should know that one Minister gets so much and another receives so much. I hope that, as a result of this debate and the expression of public opinion that it has aroused, the Cabinet will publicize the salary of individual Ministers concerned. [ am sick and tired of hearing that matters of this sort in the national life are ‘according to custom”. I am tired of hearing that certain action cannot be taken because it has never been done that way before. Let us change to the modern way of doing things.

There has been some criticism of salaries for Ministers, but that criticism has only a party political basis. Honorable senators know that if they ask any public-minded person whether he thinks that Ministers should have higher salaries, the reply will be, “ Yes, they are worth it “. They have heavy responsibilities. They do the work, and the taxpayers believe that they will get better men for the jobs if they pay appropriate salaries. I am not a critic of the proposed increase of salaries. The higher salary does not represent so much an increase in payment as a just reward for promotion to a senior position.

In my judgment, the public will be glad that certain action was taken in another place in connexion with this measure recently. They will be glad that the Senate has put a restraint on the undue haste that was exhibited by the Government on the first night of the new parliamentary session. They will be glad that the Senate has fully and freely debated the bill. No one can say that we have not been given the time and the opportunity to speak of our own free will. The public will say to the new and enlarged Cabinet, in effect, “From the 10th December last you have the green light to go ahead and continue your good work for Australia “. Therefore, I support the bill.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The speech delivered by Senator Marriott was thoughtful and provocative and was, perhaps, one of the most sensible contributions offered by the Government senators for the bill that is before the Senate. I ask honorable senators to examine the bill again so that they may remind themselves of its very brief nature. The bill states that it is “ a bill for an Act to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 “ and that it may be cited as the Ministers of State Act 1956. There is a reference to the principal act and clause 3 states -

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word “ twenty “ and inserting in its stead the word “ twenty-two “.

The fourth and final clause states -

Section five of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ Forty-one thousand pounds “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Forty-six thousand five hundred pounds “.

That is the bill that will go down on record as a measure that is considered by the Government to be important because it will effect a re-adjustment of the Cabinet. When introducing the bill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’Sullivan) said the purpose of the measure was to provide for two additional Ministers, and to increase the annual sum provided for Ministers’ salaries by £5,500. We must bear that in mind. That is all the information that has been given to honorable senators. We learn from the bill itself, in the barest terms, that the number of Ministers is to be increased from twenty to 22, and that £46,500 instead of £41,000 is to be provided for ministerial salaries, but there is much more in this bill than meets the eye. lt is easy to visualize how the whips have been cracking during the week-end to discipline many members on the Government side in their attitude to this bill. There has been a great measure of deceit in the introduction of the bill, and many explanations have had to be made since it was introduced into the Parliament. It is the obligation of members of the Parliament in both Houses to be sure that all the facts about the legislation before them are placed clearly at their disposal, and that they are given full opportunity for free discussion. When this bill was introduced, all the facts were not revealed. We have had the first taste of the ruthless methods this Government decided to adopt as soon as it was given a big majority; perhaps too big a majority for the good of democracy. It is using its power to gag the Opposition and ruthlessly discipline its supporters to put the measure through.

We on the Opposition side are quite justified in entering the strongest protest of which we are capable against the methods that have been adopted by the Government. It has used pressure, the gag and deceit in an attempt to hasten the passage of this bill. I hope that the debate that has taken place will be a salutary lesson to the Government, and that it will realize in future that not only we on the Opposition side, but also the people of Australia want all the cards put upon the table. The people want to know where the money is going and why it is being spent. If the Government does not act decently in these matters, it will be undermining the finest institution we have - the democratic form of government. This bill has shown how undemocratic the Government is becoming, and how much power the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has taken to himself.

Senator Brown:

– He has too much power.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Yes, the right honorable gentleman is giving all the opportunities to his own party. He is handing out only crumbs to his former allies in the Australian Country party. He introduced this legislation because he wanted to reduce the number of Country party members in the Cabinet. He has relegated all but two to the second eleven or, in racing parlance, to the second division of the handicap. He has his own party hacks in the stable ready to join in the race. He has handed out the rewards to his old friends of the early days when he was a lone star ranger. Only a few stuck to him, and they have been promoted to the highest rank. They will be entitled to all the “perks” of office, including the title “Eight honorable”. It is rather strange that it was whilst the Prime Minister was absent, as he rarely is, from another place - we regret very much that he was ill - that the whole thing fell apart. After the big white chief went away, the rot set in. That is exactly what happened when the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), who introduced it, did not even know what was going on. Although he is responsible finally for the allocation of funds, he was not aware of the reason why an additional £5,500 was required. That is indicative of the way the Government is acting in another place, when it has an overwhelming majority. The Prime Minister cracks the whip, and makes every one move as he wishes. I consider that this negative and undesirable attitude on the part of the Prime Minister should not be tolerated. The head of the Government should not be invested with almost dictatorial powers. The essence of democracy is the sharing of responsibility and the selection of senior men in an open and democratic way. As Senator Marriott has said, the Cabinet is the heart of the Government, and the Government is the heart of the nation.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is suffering from a coronary occlusion.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– That is so. The blood stream did not flow through the arteries because the Prime Minister was at the Lodge. That is how the coronary occlusion occurred. The introduction of the bill in another place was accompanied by a series of misstatements. The statement that an additional £5,500 was needed for the salaries of two Ministers was a glaring example of deceit. For that reason, the Opposition expresses its strongest protest against the measure. The Treasurer made no mention of the additional expense that would be incurred in setting up the new ministries. The Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator O’sullivan) stated in his second-reading speech -

The need for one of the additional ministerial posts arises from the creation of a new Department of Primary Industry.

I believe that, although belated, this is an admirable move, in view of the fact that for the last 100 years this country has, economically, ridden on the sheep’s back. It is extraordinary that not until 1956 has it been considered essential to establish a Department of Primary Industry. I do not raise my voice against this very important and timely move, except to point out that the establishment of the new department will certainly cost much more than the amount that the Parliament has been given to understand will be involved in effecting the ministerial changes. Indeed, we have been given no information at all of this aspect of the matter. I come now to the proposed division of the Cabinet into sections. The Minister continued -

The other arises from the view that it is better for each service department to have its own separate Minister.

Therefore, the service departments have been separated. This is one of the reasons for increasing the number of Ministers from . 20 to 22. The Minister went on to say -

This does not necessarily mean that there shall be three Ministers, each in charge of a service department and having no other ministerial duties ….

Actually, however, it means that there will be a Minister for the Navy, a Minister for the Army, a Minister for Air, a Minister for Defence and a Minister for Defence Production. The following sentence of the Minister’s second-reading speech is at variance with the provisions of the bill- -

The reduction in the size of the Cabinet has been decided upon-

Actually, there has not been a reduction in the size of the Cabinet. The bill increases the number of Ministers by two. The remainder of the sentence reads - to permit greater concentration of discussion and expedition of decision on policy matters.

I believe that what is actually happening is that the select few - those running on the inside with the Prime Minister - will have certain decisions to make. “When they feel inclined to call in one of the junior Ministers from the second eleven - equivalent to a man who brings in the drinks during a spell at a cricket match, so to speak - they will do so, but the members of the second eleven will never have an opportunity to hear the deliberations of Cabinet. Her Majesty’s Ministers of State in the second eleven, although charged with the responsibility of Cabinet Ministers, will not be sufficiently informed of the overall policy of the senior Ministers. That is a grave departure from the system of democratic government that has operated in this country since federation. In the first place, several capable and responsible Ministers, who are members of this chamber, will not be in touch with the overall Cabinet policy; they will be informed only insofar as Cabinet decisions affect their own departments. They will be expected to carry responsibility as Her Majesty’s Ministers of State without a knowledge of the background to Cabinet decisions. This is the state of affairs that will arise as a result of the division of Cabinet, and it will have a detrimental effect on the traditional system of parliamentary government in Australia.

Another factor implicit in the bill will be the cost over and above the amount of £5,500 to which I have referred. Six Ministers will b’e affected; two of them are coming from the back benches to draw Cabinet salaries, and four are being promoted from the second section to the first section of the Cabinet. Therefore, however we consider this matter, increases of salary for six men are1 involved. Let us call a spade a spade. This is an increase of salaries. I do not oppose that. I believe that not only are our Ministers of State the poorest paid Ministers in the whole of the Western world, but also the ordinary members of this Federal Parliament are the poorest paid members of any parliament in the Western world. That is a matter that should be given very close consideration. I am not trying to fly a kite, so to speak, because I have not nearly such heavy responsibilities as some honorable senators have. However, even with the responsibilities that I undertake in trying to do my job in a conscientious way, I find that I cannot hold my own. How a man with family responsibilities is able to do so. I do not know. But that is another matter.

No mention has been made in the second-reading speech, or in the bill, of the administrative costs that will be involved. For instance, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) surely will need a personal secretary and a whole ministerial staff. In addition, he will need research officers and all the other staff which is so important if a department of that kind is to maintain an appropriate standard in dealing with this important section of our economic life. No mention has been made of travelling expenses, such as the cost incurred when the Minister needs to have conferences with his departmental heads in the various States. Either he will need to travel to them, or they will have to travel to Canberra to see him. In addition, the Department of Primary Industry will need men highly experienced’ in the primary industries, and they will have to be paid salaries commensurate with their knowledge and ability. Money for that purpose will have to be found. Appropriate office equipment and accommodation for the staff also will be necessary.

I believe that this matter is one which the Senate is entitled to have cleared up. The responsible Minister should be prepared to lay the whole of the Government’s cards on the table, so that we may be informed of the position. That is necessary, also, in order that the people of Australia, who, in the final analysis, will have to pay for this re-organization, may know what the cost will be.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) this afternoon raised the question of Senate representation in the Cabinet. That representation remains the same as it was when the Cabinet consisted of only fourteen members. In addition, we find that some of the Senate members of the Ministry have been reduced in status. I think that every honorable senator should express his disapproval of this cavalier treatment of the Senate. Perhaps the responsible Minister will indicate the degree of consideration that was given to additional representation of the Senate in Cabinet. I see opposite me on the treasury bench some excellent material that quite easily could have been incorporated in the Cabinet. As I say, I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to express its disapproval of this treatment. The matter should not be overlooked, even though we have not heard any comments from members of the Government in this chamber. Apparently, they are completely subject to the whims and wishes of one man who seems to have been affected by his ride on the crest of the wave of temporary political popularity.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– A pretty long ride !

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I assure Senator Marriott that the right honorable gentleman is on a dumper, and most Australian people- know what that is. He has only two alternatives for the people - bankruptcy or war.

Senator Maher:

– He has not hit the dumper yet.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He is riding on the crest of it. I suggest that he is intoxicated by his temporary success, and I predict that he will have a nasty hangover from it. I believe that we should have greater representation in the Cabinet. We should be pressing not only to retain the status we have had until the present, but also to attain pro raiarepresentation. As the number of Ministers of State is increased, so the proportionate representation from the Senate, should be increased.

The whole issue that we have before us illustrates the early attitude of the Government to the rank and file members of this Parliament. We are elected to represent various sections of the Australian community. We are, in effect, their voices and their listening posts. We are here to watch legislation being introduced, to voice our opinions, and to safeguard the interests of the people we represent. Those people have paid us the honour of sending .us to this Parliament, and it is our duty to make sure that measures that are brought into this chamber and the House of Representatives are introduced in a proper way, without any attempt at covering up certain portions. Such attempts must be ruthlessly exposed and attacked. We must ensure that not only those in this chamber, but also the press and, through the medium of broadcasting, the people of Australia, know what is going on in this Parliament. I support the excellent case put forward by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, when he posed some very telling questions for the Government. I think those questions should be answered fully and clearly.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– My remarks concerning this bill will be short, but I hope they will be to the point. In speaking of this matter, I must agree with many of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber who have expressed surprise and disappointment with the contents of the bill, the manner in which it was presented to the Parliament, and the attempt which was made to force it through. It is, however, a very important bill, and as such we should give it our very earnest consideration.

Honorable senators have listened to an excellent second-reading speech, so that they know the details of the measure. There is no need for me to discuss those details. Honorable senators will appre ciate that the two important factors in the bill are those which deal with the appointment of two more Ministers and the payment of a certain sum of money to them as salary, in addition to the payment of a sum of money to certain other Ministers. Since the bill was presented in another place by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), at a few minutes’ notice, owing to the illness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber have had a more adequate explanation of its contents. I think that the appointment of additional members of the Ministry has everything to commend it, although I also think that the remarks of Senator Marriott, concerning the correlation of the various portfolios in the present cabinet, merit”) tb.<? notice of the Prime Minister. Even honorable senators opposite would agree that, the appointments having been made and announced by the Prime Minister, the labourer is worthy of his hire. Those two Ministers who are, as it were, hanging fire at the moment, not knowing whether they are really Ministers, have not been sworn in or received any ministerial salaries, and they cannot receive any until this bill is passed. This debate has demonstrated that the bicameral system of government and the existence of the Senate is most valuable. The public of Australia, who have been listening to this debate, will appreciate how the Senate can, in many ways, help to resolve problems passed on to it by the House of Representatives, a fact that is made evident when bills such as this have such a stormy passage through that chamber. In all fairness, our colleagues opposite should not go on as they do, and I hope that honorable senators opposite will join with the Government and pass this bill.

My first reaction was to vote against the measure, but after hearing the explanations given at a party meeting, and the further explanations given by the Minister introducing the bill in this chamber, I came to the conclusion that it was a measure which I could fully support. It is not a matter to be made a major issue by the Opposition.

The financial clauses of the bill have given honorable senators most concern.

In September last, the Prime Minister appealed to the ‘ nation to exercise economy wherever possible. He said also that no action would be taken to raise members’ salaries until he had made a statement on the finances of the nation in June and the effects of the economy drive which he had asked the nation to undertake. He said, further, that in July he would present the Richardson report on the salaries of members. The explanations that have been given concerning the bill, though rather belated, show that the increases proposed are really designed to regularize the salaries of Ministers who have been promoted to senior positions. That is no more than following Public Service practice. “When an officer is promoted to a senior position he is immediately paid the higher salary which that position commands. However, I feel strongly that the payment of the increased salaries proposed by this bill should be deferred until the 1st July.

The passage of this measure through another place without proper discussion gave it a rather bad start and gave the impression that there was something sinister about it. The action of members both here and in another place in protesting against that procedure will, I hope, serve as a reminder to our leaders that we have been judged and elected by the people to help in the government of this country. If we are to use our talents, whatever they may be, in assisting the Government, we are entitled to a full explanation of every bill presented, and should be informed of the intention behind it.

Having uttered my protest, I congratulate the Government on its reelection to office, and I wish the new Ministers a very happy term of office when their offices are authorized.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Tasmania

– Too much time has been wasted already on this quite unimportant bill. The enlargement of the Cabinet, and the division of it into the nobler and the lesser groups, is purely a domestic affair for the Government, and one in which no one else has the right to interfere. There is no reason why anyone should dictate to an elected government whom it shall elect as Minis ters or how it shall compose its Cabinet.

I understand that something of a faux pas was made in another place when the proposed increase of salaries to senior Ministers was discussed, and that it received the publicity which it deserved. People could easily have thought that in another place something was ‘being covered up, but in this House the bill has been fully explained, and honorable senators have been able to judge it on its merits. The proposed increase of salary for ministers is automatic. People axe not sincere who say that the conditions of the country are such that this measure should not have been introduced at this time. Honorable senators know that next July a bill to provide for an increase in the salaries of members of Parliament will be brought down. The Richardson report on that subject will also be open for discussion. Obviously, the salaries of private members will be considerably increased, and I am certain that in this House honorable senators will not be backward in accepting a rise.

The allocation of portfolios between the House of Representatives and the Senate is a matter for argument. It appears that the intention of the Government is to take away from the Senate many of its powers, and I have been pleased to see that honorable senators on both sides of the House have attempted to uphold the dignity of this chamber and what it stands for. That being so, the Leader of the Opposition, when he brought the matter forward, should also have said that the policy of the Labour party provides for the abolition of the Senate. In my opinion, if the Senate is to fulfil its proper function as a States house and review the legislation that comes from another place, there should be no Ministers with portfolios in the Senate, and therefore tied to the government of the day.

I believe that much time which could have been utilized to better purpose on the Address-in-Reply debate has been wasted over this bill. That debate gives the Opposition ample opportunities to attack the Government, and to point out things which may be good for the souls of Ministers. However, the Opposition surely must recognize that the bill will go through, and, in those circumstances, it should not call for a division on the measure now before the Senate.

Senator TANGNEY (Western Australia) [9.23J. - I rise to oppose the bill, not because I think that the labourer is not worthy of his hire, but because there are much deeper principles involved in it. I think that members on both sides of the chamber were amazed to find that in the past there has been discrimination between Ministers, and that Ministers from this chamber holding such responsible positions as that of AttorneyGeneral, and Minister for National Development, have been regarded only as junior Ministers, and remunerated as such. I think that all honorable senators are agreed that that is an anomaly which should be rectified. The manner in which this bill was introduced into the Parliament is entirely foreign to our conception of what is right in these matters. It was brought in at 10 o’clock at night, and an attempt was made to bulldoze it through the other chamber. Its aims and provisions were not disclosed, and there was a lack of frankness in the whole proceedings. Those are matters that the Opposition cannot support. I should like to believe, with my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Robertson, that the fact that the bill has had longer consideration has been due to the influence of the Senate, but I am afraid that the Senate did not enter into consideration at all. The opportunity for further consideration that has been offered is, in my opinion, the result of the public outcry at the way in which the measure was dealt with in the other chamber. Even some Government supporters felt that an injustice had been done, and it was realized that the bill could not possibly go through in the way originally intended. The purpose of the bill was more suppressed than expressed, and information which should have been given to legislators was not forthcoming. The Government failed to recognize that members of Parliament had some inherent rights in connexion with the legislation placed before them. I repeat that, in my opinion, the time allowed for debate in this chamber is the direct result of the opposition to the bill, both within the ranks of the Government’s own supporters and on the part of the general public outside.

I do not agree with those who say that the debate on this measure has been a waste of time. We have been told by both Government and Opposition speakers that the bill is vitally important because it brings to light consideration of the Cabinet system of government. That is a system of government which is inherent in “a democracy, md, therefore, we say that it is not democratic to have a Cabinet consisting of an inner group and for the discussion of important matters to be so completely one-sided as it will be under the present allocation of portfolios. We know that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to allocate portfolios as he pleases, and, therefore, I hope that I am not presumptuous in criticizing his action. At this stage, I wish to pay my personal tribute to one of the Ministers in the previous Government who has not been included in the new Ministry, and I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the former Minister for the Interior, Mr. Kent Hughes, for his kind and just treatment of the matters I brought before him on behalf of my constituents. I wish him well in his parliamentary career, although he is no longer in the Ministry.

We in this chamber are still somewhat befogged by the fact that some importantportfolios are not held by members of the inner Cabinet. Some very good men, with many years of experience in the Parliament, have been excluded from the inner Cabinet. I endorse the remarks of another honorable senator on this side about the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who for nearly three decades has represented his State in this chamber, and in his capacity as Minister for Repatriation has done a very fine job for ex-service men and women. Yet he is not in the inner Cabinet. We find also that the portfolio of Social Services is regarded as being of so relatively little importance that it is at the bottom of the list. At the moment, the department is not in control of a permanent Minister, but that is not anything new, because the portfolio has see-sawed from one person to another since 1949. The portfolio of Social Services is important because within its ambit are the happiness and well-being of many human beings. It should not be at the bottom of the list in any Prime Minister’s list of offices.

At a time when this country is calling out for the development of its primary industries, and we are seeking to develop trade with other countries, the Minister in charge of the new department of Primary Industry will not be a member of the inner Cabinet; yet when there is fear of an economic crisis, that Minister is selected as an economic expert to confer with other experts and to offer advice to the Government. A series of advisory boards has been appointed, and now we have an inner Cabinet, an outer Cabinet, and various bodies of advisers and experts, and we do not know where we are going. The first ‘knowledge we have had of these changes has come from newspaper reports. I do not know whether geographical considerations had anything to do with the composition of the inner Cabinet, but, with all due respect to Western Australia, I cannot understand why the Department of Territories is regarded as being of greater importance than are the Departments of Repatriation, Social Services, Primary Industry, or Supply.

Another point that disturbs me is the fact that, whereas in a Ministry of 22 members the Senate should rightly be represented by seven Ministers, under the new set-up the number of Senate Ministers still remains at five. The subject has already been dealt with quite extensively. We also find that five out of the 22 members are service Ministers. We have a Minister for Supply, a Minister for Defence Production, a Minister for Defence, a Minister for Air, a Minister for the Navy and a Minister for the Army. The Minister for the Army is the odd man out. I wonder how this is going to be received in Army circles. Even though we have reached the atomic age, we still have to remember that in any plan of defence the foot-slogger is still with

U3. In the defence of this country it has been the ordinary men of our Australian Imperial Force who have made the name of Australia such a proud one in the annals of this country and of the world. To relegate the Army to such an insignificant part of the defence scheme will not be of much assistance to this Government.

We also find that the Minister for Health who is in control of a vital portfolio is regarded as being of minor importance. I feel that every aspect of our national life which is covered by ministerial direction is important. We cannot simply say that this aspect is more important than that. There must be some co-operative scheme between these departments, because one is more or less complementary to the other for the national good. If the Prime Minister has found that the working of a Cabinet of nineteen has become so unwieldy that he has to divide it, why in the world has he increased the Ministry to 22 at a time when we are not engaged in war as we were in the years between 1941 and 1946 when there were nineteen members in the Cabinet ? It is ten years since the war ended, and this country has been governed by a Cabinet of twenty; but now, because of the difficulties confronting the Prime Minister, he has decided to increase the Ministry to 22 and divide it into a greater and a lesser division and also bring in panels of experts to help solve Australia’s problems. We do not agree with these things. We think that they should have been thrashed out in the Parliament or that the Parliament should have had some knowledge of them before this measure was sprung upon the Parliament at a late hour last week when it was hoped that it would go through in an hour and a half on a day when most of the members were a little weary after travelling to the opening of Parliament and after attending the festivities associated with that day. When honorable members came back that evening expecting the AddressinReply debate, this bill was suddenly sprung upon them.

I am sorry for the Ministers who have not received their salaries. It is not going to be much when they get it, but we should like it to be realized that we have no quarrel with the amount of remuneration that the Ministers receive. I think it is far and away below what they should receive for the national services they perform. Men in private industry receive a great deal more in positions of far less responsibility. We have no quarrel with the actual amount that is envisaged in this bill. Our quarrel is with the way it has been presented to the Parliament, and the amount of “ cover-up “ that has been associated with it. There has not been complete honesty with regard to this matter. We have been told that the cost of these ministerial salaries will be in the vicinity of only £3,500, but from the records of this Parliament we know that the provision of ministerial secretaries, travelling allowances, offices and so on, for twenty Ministers is in the vicinity of £300,000 a year. Therefore, for an additional two Ministers the extra cost will work out at about £30,000 a year. That is how much it will cost the people of this country. It may be money well spent; I do not quarrel with that. My point is that the facts do not appear in this bill, because the people are being led to believe that this proposition is going to cost only £3,500 or £5,500. What wc want is frankness from the Government in this regard. We also find that this proposal involves an additional expenditure of £2,000 for a purpose which was kept very quiet for obvious reasons. Some Ministers whom we think have been underpaid are going to receive a little more. We have no quarrel except with the timing of the proposal. It is being made at a time when other members of this Parliament have been asked not to accept any rise in salaries. Therefore, it ill behoves the Government to set this example, or to preach one thing and practise another. It is for those reasons that we oppose the bill.

As I have said, we do not oppose the payment of extra remuneration which, we think, Ministers should have. I was amazed to find that the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) had not hitherto been a senior Minister. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read in the press the names of the Ministers for whom this extra money was required. Neither could I believe that the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who has had a terrific job and one which still requires a great deal of work, was also a lesser-paid Minister. I, myself, do not think that there should be these distinc tions among Ministers. That is just my point of view. Each Minister is doing a national job, and if these jobs are fairly allocated there should be no necessity for “ A’s “ and “ B’s “ in the Cabinet. I hope that honorable senators do not misunderstand me. I think that they all are doing a job of national importance. If they cannot do it, they should not be in the Cabinet; but members of the Cabinet should receive the remuneration to which their office as Ministers entitles them.

We regret the manner in which this bill was brought before the Parliament. Wc applaud those who had the courage to point out to the people of this country wherein the danger lay in accepting willy nilly such a piece of apparently harmless legislation. It was only a small thing according to some people elsewhere. The smallness of it does not count at all; it is what that smallness really means. It involves a great principle which we on this side of the chamber cannot forgo, despite the fact, as I have said, that we do not in any way think that Ministers are overpaid. However, we believe that the manner in which this measure has been brought before this chamber is not in the best interests of the people of Australia.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Having regard to the functioning of the Cabinet system in Australia since I have had the honour of being a member of this Parliament, I am simply amazed at the observations of those honorable senators who have suggested that the emoluments of members of the Cabinet should be regarded as being unimportant. Anything which affects the Constitution or the operation of the Cabinet system in a post-war democracy, not only in Australia but also in the United Kingdom, affects one of the most potent powers of Parliament. Cabinet is one of the agencies within the Parliament which is emerging as a real challenge to the oldtime traditional functioning of the Parliament itself and which is intruding upon the province and independence of private members in such a way as to deny the traditional rights of private members to perform their duty of expressing judgment on legislation and administration. I am one of those who have seen in the operation of the federal Cabinet since 1949 a failure to appreciate that corporate capacity which, I believe, is the galvanizing influence in Cabinet and really makes the Cabinet system work. When we have a strong and virile, and for the most part a successful, civil service such as the Commonwealth Public Service protected as it is against the Cabinet and the Parliament, and able to make an impact on an individual Minister, we may find that such a Minister will confront the Parliament, without previous consultation, with some proposal which is the indirect idea of the Minister but the direct idea of a departmental head. Such a piece of legislation, by escaping the corporate criticism of Cabinet, is in a form much less acceptable to a Parliament than if it had gone through the process of Criticism by the Cabinet. In a corporate cabinet every member is prepared to study legislation put before it, discuss it in the privacy of the Cabinet room, and ensure that when it leaves the Cabinet, it is the mature product of the members of the Cabinet and not merely the idea of some civil servant carried to the Parliament per medium of one Minister.

For that reason I have supported the ideas of my colleagues that a smaller Cabinet would regain the proper function of Cabinet, and would contribute that corporate responsibility, to which I have already referred, to the matters that it takes in hand. I support the constitution of a smaller Cabinet because I believe that within it will develop the realization that Cabinet has to take the real responsibility for legislation that comes before the Senate, and that it may make for a more independent Parliament than has been the case during the last six years. I still hold that belief notwithstanding my dismal disappointment over this bill, which is the first product of such a system.

This measure represents a complete denial of every objection that those who urged the construction of the inner Cabinet had in mind, and it is essential that the inner Cabinet system should be accompanied by a realization that there must be a proper channel of responsibility between Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers, and a proper opportunity for consultation between Cabinet Ministers, other Ministers and private members of the Parliament. If that is not to be so, then the system will be heading for destruction.

The second aspect of this bill deals not with the constitution of Cabinet, but with the emoluments of Ministers. It comes up for our consideration at a time when, I believe, this Parliament has a most particular responsibility with regard to an increase of remuneration of any of its members. We have just come from the people with their enthusiastic endorsement of the Government for a further term of office, having given the people only one specific assurance. The speech made on behalf of the Government parties to the electors of Australia in November last contained remarkably few specific proposals or particular promises. The Government parties apparently felt very safe and secure in their belief that they would receive the endorsement of the people without making specific promises. But that speech was preceded by the most important statement made to the Parliament during its last session, and that was the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), made in September last, about the economic situation of Australia.

That statement, which I believe had the approval of every member of the Parliament, contained the Prime Minister’s assurance that, so gravely did he regard the Government’s responsibility of facing up to the economic stringency . that was then possibly facing us, he had asked the committee that had been constituted to advise the Government upon possible alterations in parliamentary remunerations not to submit its report until after the 30th June, 1956. That was a clear and specific assurance that parliamentary remunerations would not be increased until after that date. Having gone to the people and asked for their confidence on that basis, it seems most unfortunate that the first measure that the Government should submit after its election for a further term should contain a proposal which I am unable to describe as anything other than one to increase certain parliamentary remunerations.

When I left Canberra last Wednesday night, I had not heard a word about any proposal to increase ministerial emoluments, but I saw references to it in the press on the following days. I then felt that I must have been the victim of some misunderstanding, and I anxiously waited to peruse the bill in order to ascertain whether or not any view of the measure was justified other than that it was designed to increase parliamentary salaries. I have listened to some of my colleagues putting forward the view that the bill does not propose to increase parliamentary salaries, but is merely a recognition of the promotion of certain Ministers to whose senior status there now accrue certain higher emoluments. I wish I could find it within my heart to accept that as a valid contention, but I regard it as completely tenuous and untenable. The fact of the matter is that when the Nicholas report was presented to the Parliament, the Government took action in accordance with it, and, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’Sullivan) said when the bill to give effect to the Nicholas report was introduced in 1952 -

The appropriation under the Ministers of State Bill provides for an amount equivalent to that suggested by the committee.

The appropriation of £41,000 then made, was an appropriation of an amount equivalent to that which was suggested by the committee, and, as we know, Mr. Justice Nicholas suggested that six Ministers might be regarded as senior Ministers in addition to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. In effect, he suggested that the actual number of senior Ministers might be left to the discretion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, exercising his discretion, submitted to the Parliament an amending bill which provided exactly that number - six. That is the basis upon which the Leader of the Government in the Senate made the statement that the 1952 bill provided for an amount equivalent to that suggested by the committee. Therefore, there was a division between senior Ministers and other Ministers in the Cabinet between 1952 and the general election of March, 1954. After that election the Cabinet was divided into two sections, the senior and the junior, and from March, 1954, to December, 4955, we found it possible to have the Cabinet so divided and to render service in the councils of the nation, despite the fact that only six Ministers were receiving emoluments as senior Ministers. The Prime Ministers of Australia also had their special emoluments, and the other eleven men contributed on the basis of their emoluments to a lesser degree. It is completely untenable to claim now that those same men, who sat as Cabinet Ministers from 1952 to December, 1955, and are continuing to sit in the present Cabinet as Ministers, have had promotion to another position to which increased emoluments are attached. Therefore, this proposal to increase the Cabinet fund by an amount which is more than sufficient to provide for the two new Ministers with their emoluments, is plainly an increase of salary for certain Ministers. It represents a rejection by the Parliament of the one specific assurance that was given before the last general election. Upon that basis, I believe that it is a clear duty to support any request for a reduction of that amount to prevent the pro-‘ posed increase until the Parliament is free, in its wisdom, to alter parliamentary remunerations by increase or reduction.

I say that because I believe there devolves upon this Parliament, at the present juncture, a big responsibility. .1 remind myself that for the past week the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has been sitting in Melbourne in judgment upon the question whether cost-of-living adjustments should be made in the industrial awards of Australia. I realize the threat that is involved through State industrial tribunals undermining the economic stability of the nation by introducing variables in industrial remuneration. I realize the understandable difficulty of inducing any large group of workers, such as the shearers, to accept a reduction of remuneration because of altered economic circumstances in the great wool industry. I realize, too, that we have been suffering the most pitiable economic dislocation over the past five or six weeks because of a demand by 27,000 waterside workers for increased remuneration.

When I ponder those grave circumstances, it seems to me that the question of a variation of remuneration is a matter of the greatest importance to this Parliament. I would dissociate myself definitely and unequivocably from the sentiments I have heard expressed in this chamber at one time and another that we are concerned only with “ a paltry £2,000 “. It is not the size of the amount that counts; it is the nature and significance of the amount. For those reasons, I propose to support the bill, but not to support the proposal for the increase of salaries which is contained in the bill.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I would not have intruded on this debate but for the misconception under which Senator Gorton appeared to be labouring in stating the basis upon which the Opposition has adopted its attitude to this measure. Our attitude to the legislation does not rest merely on the circumstances under which the legislation was presented in another place. It is much deeper and more fundamental than that. In its content, this measure is in the nature of an appropriation bill. The bill, providing as it does for the appropriation of additional moneys to provide for emoluments for Ministers in two groups, is designed to make financially practicable what the Prime Minister (Mir. Menzies) had already determined to do administratively. Apart from the principle involved, it is vitally important to this chamber that the bill should be considered from that point of view.

The annual Appropriation Bill is a request to the Parliament to vote money for the discharge of the administrative cost of government. “We in this chamber always scrutinize that bill with the greatest care, and our first complaint is that this bill, which is of a similar character, did not fully disclose its purport and intention. I agree with Senator Gorton that that failure did not occur here, but in another place. Our opposition is to the principle by which legislation affected by appropriation is being given effect. I agree with Senator Wright when he states that the approach of the Senate to this matter must be most serious. I regard any intervention in constitutional practice, constitutional standards, constitutional convention or tradition as a matter of very great moment, and one which must be care fully considered by either House of the National Parliament. When such a step is taken, it must be taken on valid premises and for a justifiable reason.

The horror of this particular piece of legislation is that, for the first time, it will give legislative recognition to a departure from a traditional approach to Cabinet government in Australia. If such a departure is to be made, it should be made objectively, dispassionately and quite apart from the demands of the political situation. The further horror of this legislation is that, in its short history, it has been shown to be obviously a concession to political expediency. In other words, a cherished national constitutional convention in our approach to the Cabinet system of government in Australia has been gravely disturbed in an atmosphere of haste and, if not of concealment, at least in an atmosphere of less than full disclosure.

Obviously, that step has been taken aa a concession to political demands. The Government parties have made these concessions to satisfy the political needs of a coalition. Therefore, I say that this chamber must look at the legislation with the greatest care. For that reason I agree firmly and strongly with Senator Wright in his appeal to honorable senators to approach the bill in that manner. Complaints have been expressed throughout this nation by writers on constitutional problems. There have been complaints by ordinary persons, and individual fears have been expressed in the press and in this chamber at the gradual intrusion of the executive government into the lives of the ordinary people. That is a pressure which legislatures normally resist to the utmost. We must have executive government; .practical life demands it, and the Constitution contemplates it and provides it. Hp to now, we have had a fairly wide spread of the distribution of executive power. We have had a system of Cabinet government, with each member personally responsible in the corporate sense to which Senator Wright has referred - in recent years spread over nineteen or twenty Ministers. Under this bill, we are going to get a concentration of executive power in the hands of what can only be described as a junta. I do not say that as a reflection on those who, as announced by the Prime Minister, will constitute the Cabinet. Where there is a diminishing number of individuals upon whom are conferred increasingly large and responsible powers, it is almost inevitable that that body develops into a junta. That is a pressure which must be strongly resisted.

In the course of his excellent speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred briefly to the practice in England. What is contemplated in actual political practice with this new division of powers will be a Cabinet, to which may be sumomned at the request - apparently the exclusive request - of the Prime Minister, any member of the Ministry not being a Cabinet member, whose department, or some aspect of it, is to be discussed. The English practice has been like that. Almost inevitably there will be at every Cabinet meeting Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet, because the nature of their portfolios is such that, in almost every matter that comes before the Cabinet, their presence is virtually indispensable. That has been the English practice, and it may be expected to happen here.

I come now to the group of Ministers concerned with defence, which includes the Minister for Supply, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Production and the Ministers for the three arms of the services. I, myself, cannot conceive many situations arising involving the defence of Australia in any aspect which will not have a direct effect on the three services. That being so, at any Cabinet meeting at which defence will be dealt with, even if it is a matter apparently affecting only the Army, inevitably the other defence Ministers will be required. If they are not present, the Cabinet meeting will not be fully informed or fully documented. Quite probably, in practical Cabinet administration, there will be adjournment after adjournment, and the system will defeat itself. Whatever may he the provisions of the bill, practically every Cabinet meeting will be so expanded by the summoned attendance of Ministers necessary on that occasion that it will include almost all members of the Ministry. As I have said, if we are going to interfere with constitutional tradition and functions, which we cherish very much, at least we have to satisfy the people that th*>. new system will work. If it becomes apparent that, after all the clamour and shouting surrounding this legislation that the system does not work, we shall have done very grave damage to something which at least has worked competently in thiscountry in times of peace, during two world wars, and through a major economic disaster.

Another factor that arises is the question of ministerial responsibility. I was unable clearly to follow Senator Wright’s thesis, as he propounded it, on the question of corporate responsibility. He seemed to me to indicate that until the division of Cabinet into what was referred to jocularly at the time as the first eleven and the second eleven, a division that today is taking a more permanent and clearer form, there was not that degree of corporate responsibility which will be obtained under this system, and there was an intrusion on the province and rights of private members of the legislature. I should be disturbed to think that at any time when the Cabinet was functioning in the fullest sense, any Minister in it did not recognize his personal responsibility, and that there was therefore, something less than full corporate responsibility among the whole nineteen members of the Cabinet at that time. The alternative to that, to my mind. was more alarming. Seeing that the responsibility was so widely separated under the old system, nobody really accepted it, and only under this alternative system will there be a full acceptance. Again, I should be disturbed to think that in the days that have passed there did not obtain the degree of corporate responsibility which, by tradition, we came to expect in the Cabinet. I do not think we will get any greater degree of acceptance and discharge of responsibility under this system than we had then.

We should regard this as a very important matter, one that goes to the very base of our constitutional position. We hope that the system will work, and that the ministers- who are entrusted with the full weight of .responsibility in the realm of high policy-making will accept and discharge that responsibility adequately. I could not follow Senator Wright’s logic in this matter. Despite the element of concealment in the manner in which this appropriation increasing the salaries of ministers has been put before us, I cannot agree that an increase was not justified in the light of the distribution of functions.

It is not my wish to defend the situation of the Government; it would be beyond my personal skill, and completely beyond the bounds of my ingenuity to do so. But I intrude the thought that certain members of the Ministry have gone into a separate group and will bear additional responsibilities; they will now accept the full measure of corporate responsibility for high policy over the whole gamut of governmental administration. Positions are classified and reclassified in the professional classes, not on the ordinary physical demands of the job in terms of hours, but according to the responsibility that is assumed. As new responsibilities will be imposed on this group - a principle with which we do not agree - at least it is fair to say that they are deserving of a corresponding increase in salary. The logic of that situation is that those in the ministry, but outside the Cabinet, whilst doing the same sort of administrative work, will be relieved of the tremendous responsibility of policy decisions, except in their execution. I do not stand for reduction of salaries, but to be perfectly logical, that is the position in which Senator Wright would find himself. This debate has proceeded for a long time, and most aspects of the matter have been covered. I conclude by repeating the attitude of the Opposition, which is that we are opposed to the bill because of the principles that it contemplates, because of the disturbance of our constitutional convention that it will cause, and because of the fact that the Government is dividing men according to their degree of responsibility to the nation. We also oppose it because of the other serious objections which have taken the form of questions directed to the Government. The Opposition has been left in an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty and, to some extent, dismay, by the provisions of the measure. For those reasons, we shall oppose the bill at all stages.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

, - I do not intend to take up much of the time of the Senate in discussing this matter, because I think it has been canvassed fairly adequately by every honorable senator who has spoken. However, for one or two reasons, I do not wish to cast a silent vote on the measure. I intend to support the bill, because it has been brought forward by the Government after mature consideration. I cannot altogether accept the expression of opinion of Senator Byrne that the Cabinet consists of a junta of individuals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the members of the Cabinet have had some years of experience, during which they have been able to size up the abilities of the various members of the Cabinet, and I feel very confident that the selection of the men who comprise the inner Cabinet has been made by the Prime Minister, and those whom he might have consulted, on the basis that they were the men best suited to form the inner Cabinet. I must say that I am sorry that some men have not been included in it. I refer particularly to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), whom I would very much like to see in the Cabinet. Apparently, it has not been possible to include him. When there is a definite number to be chosen, such as twelve, and there are thirteen who are suitable for selection, one has to be left out. I can only conclude that a certain degree of representation has been given to the Australian Country party and a certain degree to the Liberal party. In any event, as far as I am concerned, representation of two in twelve does not seem very much different from representation of five in 22.

I am willing to wait and see how this arrangement works out, although I am not particularly struck by the fact that we have adopted the English practice. I do not think that the conditions which obtain in this country are the same as those that obtain in England, and I prefer to adopt the most suitable measures for our particular conditions.

The. only objection I have to the bill is to the fact, as pointed out by Senator Wright, that we are increasing the cost of government at a time when we are urging everybody else to decrease costs of production and to curtail expenditure as far as possible. That is the part of the bill that I do not like, and I do not like it for the reason that I have been requested, I do not know how many times, to press for the extension of the telephone system in country districts, in the interests of people who are engaged in primary production and who are, perhaps, 20 miles or 25 miles from a telephone service. Those people cannot get installations because of shortage of materials. I have urged the PostmasterGeneral on more than one occasion to obtain an increased vote for such work, but that has not been forthcoming. Therefore, I shall find myself in a difficult position when I have to go to those people and tell them that, although we can increase the cost of government, we cannot provide additional funds for these essentials for which they have been clamouring. In a certain country district of Western Australia, only a few chains of line have to be erected in order to connect with the departmental telephone system, but only to-day, the people concerned wrote to. tell me that the work had been cancelled. I suggest that that kind of thing is not very encouraging for the people in country districts.

I think that this matter might well have been left over until July, when the Richardson report will have been tabled in the Parliament. According to to-night’s press, we are to get a rise of £750 a year. The Prime Minister refused to publish that report, and I have sufficient confidence in him to know that he would not divulge such information to the press if he were not prepared to table it in the Parliament. Where the press obtained the information, I do not know. I have not the slightest knowledge of what is in the Richardson report, and I am fairly certain that nobody else has, either. For all we know, we may even have our salaries decreased as a result of the report. We must wait and see.

As I have said, I think it would have been far better had the Prime Minister deferred enlargement of the Cabinet until the end of June, when the contents of the Richardson report will be known. Then, if private members of the Parliament were granted increases, the Government would be more justified in increasing the remuneration of members of the Cabinet. I do not say for one moment that the members of the Cabinet are not entitled to an increase. We all appreciate that they carry heavy responsibility.

This measure makes no provision for residences in Canberra for the various Ministers, a matter to which I have referred in this chamber previously. If Ministers had residences here, we would know where to get in touch with them when we wanted to do so. At the present time, it is impossible to contact some Ministers between Friday morning and Tuesday morning.

I regret that this matter has been brought forward at this time. However, as has been pointed out, the purpose of the bill has been fully explained to the members of the Senate. Whatever is don? in the House of Representatives does not really matter to us, so long as we have the information that we require. With those few remarks, I support the bill.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for the Navy · Queensland · LP

– in reply - The Senate has had a very full and complete debate on this somewhat important matter. I do not think it inappropriate to refer to the situation of the Cabinet and the remuneration of its members at the time of Federation. In 1901, there were seven Ministers of State, the annual appropriation for them being £12,000. At that time, the annual budget was £11,300,000. At the present time, there are twenty Ministers of State. The annual appropriation is £41,000 and the annual budget is £1,060,000,000. The proposal now is to increase the number of Ministers to 22 whilst the appropriation suggested is £46,500 and the estimated budget £1,123,000,000.

I was very interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) on the bill. I do not know whether or not he is in favour of the abolition of Hansard, but I wish to read to the Senate some remarks that he made in 1952, when the Ministers of State Bill 1952 was before this chamber. In Hansard, volume 216, page 784, of the 5th March, 1952, the honorable senator is reported as saying -

I say at once that the improvement that will be effected by the bill now before the Senate, in providing a far more adequate remuneration for the Prime Minister and other Ministers is a reform that is long overdue. I have held that view for many years.

After dealing with the onerous work that fell upon the shoulders of the Prime Minister, he said, at page 785 -

I pass from that phase of the committee’s recommendations -

That is, the recommendations dealing with the .remuneration of the Prime Minister - to a consideration of the position of Ministers, who have vast responsibilities. They work under less tension, but nevertheless a very high degree of tension. Each Minister must concern himself not merely with the affairs of his own department; he must study every problem that arises in every other department. He must pass his vote upon it in the Cabinet, and, accordingly, accept full responsibility for whatever decision is made. He serves constantly on sub-committees of Cabinet, and I think every Minister in the Senate will agree with me that a rather unpleasant feature of his life is that he is the subject of constant criticism. That is an aspect of ministerial office which is inescapable and decidedly wearing. No other position in Australia involves tasks quite comparable to those that are imposed on a federal Minister, irrespective of the parties in office. He must devote the whole of his time, all of his days and most of his nights, to giving proper and adequate attention to his duties.

The committee has pointed to the completely absurd position that a Federal Minister of the Crown to-day receives £300 per annum less than was received by a Federal Minister at Federation in 1901. The second absurd position is that Ministers of the Crown who are charged with vast responsibility receive much less than the departmental heads who help them to carry out the administration of various departments. So, again, although the committee did not reach the high standard that I recommended for Ministers of the Crown, one must acknowledge that something very substantial has been done, although no more than justice.

There is nothing in contemplation in this measure which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Nicholas report. Senator McKenna referred to the system prevailing in the United Kingdom and the figures he mentioned are correct. There are 38 Ministers of whom only eighteen are actually in the Cabinet. Of that number only one holds a dual portfolio. The honorable Major Lloyd George, who is Minister for Home Affairs, is also Minister for Welsh Affairs.

I do not share the admiration that apparently Senator McKenna has for Professor Laski, on whom he seems to rely as an authority in support of the contention he submitted to the Senate this evening. If honorable senators care to consult the latest edition of Chambers’s Encyclopedia they will find that Harold Laski was appointed Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics in 1926. He is described by Chambers’s Encyclopedia as follows: -

His influence has been confined mainly to academic circles as his doctrinaire Marxism made little appeal to the British and American working classes.

Senator Wright:

– quite correctly as far as the fact are concerned - said that this bill would involve an increase in salary, but if the honorable senator’s argument is followed to its logical conclusion, those who are raised from the ranks of private members to the Cabinet would not draw Cabinet salary because, in fact, they would receive an increase by virtue of going into Cabinet. What is .proposed in this measure is merely a correction of anomalies.

Senator McKenna was kind enough to supply me with a copy of the questions that he asked during his speech, and in courtesy to him I should like to reply to them as far as I am able. The senator’s first question is -

Who was responsible for the Government’s mis-statement on the introduction of this measure to the Parliament that the sum of £5,500 was the minimum needed to provide salaries for two new Ministers?

There was no mistake, but there was a misunderstanding. Honorable senators are aware of the circumstances in which the bill was introduced in another place. The Prime Minister was away ill, and I am sure that no one would think for a moment that either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer would deliberately make a misstatement in the House. It was entirely a misunderstanding. Senator McKenna’s second question was -

Upon what principle, if any, was the division between Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers effected?

I am happy to say that that was decided upon a principle entirely acceptable to the Government parties. Question 3 is -

Apart from additional ministerial salaries what will be the estimated or approximate costs of creating two new portfolios in -

Ministerial personal staff.

Travelling expenses of ministerial staff.

Departmental salaries.

Office accommodation and equipment:.

Inherent in that question is a misleading conception. It must be borne in mind that although two new departments have been created, one has been abolished. The Department of Commerce and Agriculture has ceased to exist, and has been succeeded by the Department of Trade. The new Department of Primary Industry has also been created. The function of these departments will not be new or additional, but there will be a better streamlining and allocation of duties, and it is hoped that a greater efficiency will result from the new arrangement.

The Leader of the Opposition asked in his fourth question -

Why was not at least one additional ministerial portfolio allotted to the Senate?

Such a question coming from Senator McKenna, who has signed a platform favouring the abolition of the Senate, hardly calls for an answer. Question 5 is -

What effort, if any, did members of the Government and Government supporters in the Senate make to secure such allotment?

I refer to my answer to the previous question. Question 6 -

Is it a fact that the Prime Minister alone determined the division of Ministers into two categories as well as the allocation of Ministers to the categories?

All I can say about that is that the Prime Minister enjoys the unbounded confidence and trust of the party which he leads. Question 7 asks -

What arrangements, if any, have been made to ensure that non-Cabinet Ministers in the Senate will be able to properly handle matters affecting departments administered by Ministers in the House of Representatives whom they represent in this chamber?

I think it was made clear earlier that Ministers handling departments will always be in attendance at Cabinet when matters affecting their administration are under consideration. Honorable senators on the opposite side of the House who have been in Cabinet know perfectly well that not all details are attended to at Cabinet meetings. It is the business and duty of Ministers to meet frequently and freely with members of the party which they represent, and I am sure that that practice will continue to be followed by the Government.

In conclusion, there are two other matters that have been mentioned. One is the suggestion that this measure was being “ bulldozed “ through the Parliament. That is completely untrue. This bill was introduced in another place last Wednesday week, and every honorable senator has had ample opportunity to familiarize himself with its contents. It was not introduced here until after members of the Senate had had an opportunity of studying it. There was no suggestion that the bill was being rushed through this House. What happened in another place is no concern of the Senate. It is completely untrue to suggest that there has been any attempt by the Government to rush it through this chamber.

The Prime Minister needs no defence by me, but I am saying this merely for the purpose of the record in reply to some suggestions that have been made. Words such as “ concealment “ and “ smartness “ have been used. Not only does the Prime Minister enjoy the unqualified respect and confidence of the party which he leads, but I am certain that he enjoys also the overwhelming confidence, although, of course, not the political loyalty, of members of the Opposition. . I do not think that any of them really believes that the Prime Minister would do anything that might destroy the prestige of the Parliament that he leads with such distinction.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Number of Ministers).

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– This is the clause which increases the number of Ministers from twenty to 22. I shall not repeat at this stage the argument that I advanced against this provision at the second reading stage of the bill, but I rise to follow up some questions that I then addressed to the Minister in relation to the clause. “With two new portfolios there will unquestionably be two new departments. That means that there will be two sets of ministerial staffs. New accommodation, and maybe new office equipment will be required for them. There may also be some transfer of departments, or sections of departments, from one place to another. Obviously, the amount that is provided in the next clause to cover the salaries of Ministers will not be the total sum involved in the transfer of departments. The two new portfolios are to be those associated with the departments of Trade and Primary Industry. It is true that under the new arrangement, the Department of Commerce and Agriculture will cease to exist, but there will be two departmental heads, whereas previously there was only one. I put it to the Minister that the Senate should be given some information, first, as to the length of time that will be necessary to accomplish these transfers; secondly, what physical matters are involved in the transfers; and thirdly, the total cost involved.

As there are to be two new Ministers, and as one of them is not to be allocated to the Senate, I ask the Minister to justify the keeping of only five Ministers in the Senate when there are to be 22 Ministers, whereas there were five Ministers in the Cabinet when the Government first assumed office. I ask him to tell the Senate also whether consideration was given to the question of allocating one portfolio to this chamber, and if the matter was considered and the proposal rejected, what was the reason for its rejection. I trust that the Minister will be able to tell us these things.

I repeat a question that I asked elsewhere, and now ask the Minister to tell us what arrangements, if any, have been made to ensure that non-Cabinet Ministers in the Senate will be able properly to handle matters affecting departments administered by Ministers in the House of Representatives whom they represent in this chamber. I point out that his reply earlier that a Minister in this chamber will know the position cannot be correct, for the reason that two of the Ministers in this chamber will attend Cabinet meetings only in two sets of conditions, namely, when there are under consideration matters specifically associated with their departments, and when specially invited by the Prime Minister to be present. It is certain that those two Ministers will not hear the discussions that lead to decisions on policies in matters affecting departments under the control of Ministers in the House of Representatives whom they represent in this chamber. I desire to know what arrangements the Government contemplates to ensure that those Ministers shall be adequately briefed. I shall put my questions in explicit terms. Will the two Ministers not in the Cabinet be supplied with copies of Cabinet submissions in these matters ? Will they be advised of the decisions of Cabinet? I take it that that will be done. Will they, in addition, be supplied with a statement of the reasons which guide the decisions made by Cabinet? I am concerned that this chamber should be given as full information as possible regarding these departments. I am anxious to know also whether the two Ministers in question will be properly armed and briefed by Cabinet to put their view-points, because I take it that though these two Ministers are not in Cabinet they accept ministerial responsibility for every decision of Cabinet and should be prepared to justify in this chamber what Cabinet decides in relation to all matters.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for the Navy · LP

– Personally, I do not think that there will be any such increase of staff as is foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I should be more inclined to think that there will be a saving in staff. I know that the department which I previously had the honour to administer has had a substantial number of its staff transferred to the new Department of Trade, so that the department can, instead of having to train staff from the ground up, start to operate with personnel trained in the particular sections covered by the department. The same position applies to the Department of Primary Industry. I understand that the head of that department, as well as its staff, will be those who hitherto were engaged in the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. So that I think that any change in the staff position will probably be in the direction of a saving.

In the last Labour Government, led by Mr. Chifley, there were five Ministers in the Senate out of a total of nineteen in the Cabinet. At the moment there are five Ministers in the Senate out of a total of twenty. Under the new proposal the Senate will have five Ministers out of 22.

Unless senators are cut into pieces, we could not get a better proportion than that.

Senator McKenna:

– My question was whether any consideration was given to that aspect of the matter.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am sorry we did not invite the Leader of the Opposition to the meeting. In regard to the last question as to what arrangement had been made to ensure that Ministers will be able properly to handle matters in the Senate which come under the portfolios of Ministers in the House of Representatives, my understanding is that all Ministers, whether or not they are members of Cabinet, receive a copy, of every submission to Cabinet and every decision of Cabinet. If they are handling a particular matter they are invited into Cabinet for consultation. There will be no alteration in the position that obtained in the past. Ministers in the Senate who represent Ministers in the House of Representatives naturally keep very closely in touch with those Ministers, and familiarize themselves as much as they can with matters that are likely to arise as a result of their ‘representation of other Ministers.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– We on this side of the chamber are in the position that, since most of us have never reached the distinction of Cabinet membership, we find it difficult to come to a decision regarding the advisability or necessity of increasing the number of Ministers. Because we have not attained the distinction of Cabinet rank we have to depend for help and advice on honorable senators on both sides of the chamber who have been, or are, Ministers of the Crown. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has been a Cabinet Minister, and so has Senator Cameron. These two honorable senators tell my party that there is no need whatsoever for an increase of the number of Ministers. On the other hand, the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’Sullivan - I was about to say “Admiral” O’sullivan - tells us there has been a huge increase in the budget and a great increase in the population.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– And a great increase in housework too.

Senator BROWN:

– That is unfair. I have not said a word to the Senate about that particular matter, but I want to say to Senator Marriott that he is just as low as the filthy newspapers which made a lying accusation against me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! I must ask the honorable senator to ignore, all interjections.

Senator BROWN:

– I did not intend to mention that matter, but the statement that Senator Marriott made is just what we expect from a low-down tory senator.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Senator BROWN:

– Senator Marriott is a low-down tory senator to say that to me.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– The term “ lowdown tory senator “ is very objectionable to me, and I request, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that the honorable senator be asked to withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Senator Marriott has said that the words used by Senator Brown are objectionable to him, and asks that they be withdrawn. 1’ ask the honorable senator to withdraw the words.

Senator BROWN:

– I am sorry that Senator Marriott said what he did, because I was trying to deal with the question before us quietly and seriously I still hold in my mind what I think of the press in Brisbane and, following on that, what I have said, and what I think, of Senator Marriott; but, because of the provisions of the Standing Orders, I must withdraw my remark before I may continue with my speech. But it hurts me very much to withdraw it, and I shall have a private talk with the Tasmanian devil - I mean, with the Tasmanian senator- - later on.

We have two different points of view about the increase of the number of Ministers, one from the Government side and one from this side of the chamber. I know Senator McKenna, and I know Senator Cameron, and I am fully convinced from what they have said on this matter, as a result of their knowledge and experience, that there is no need to increase the number of Ministers from 20 to 22. Not so many years ago a gentleman who now occupies a very high position in this Parliament - I shall not mention his name - said to me at a time when he was Minister for the Navy, while in the course of a train journey to Canberra we were having a lemonade at a place called Casino, “ Gordon, a lot of fellows talk a lot about the work they have to do. Actually, although I am Minister for the Navy, I often wonder what my next job is to be. I have very little work to do, and actually I could take on another portfolio “. However, that is by the way. But let us be fair.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– He wrote a book, I suppose.

Senator BROWN:

– I am trying to tell the honorable senator something in regard to a Minister for the Navy, and I do not want any stupid interjections from him. I know that honorable senators opposite have been referred to as “ politically animated voices “. Despite that, I wish the honorable senator would show a little intelligence. I shall be fair and say that a certain secretary attached to a Minister told me that he had to stay up till midnight to do the work of his own Minister and also the work of the Minister for the Navy, who was boasting that he had not much work to do. Another Minister for the Navy - I shall not mention his name either - said that his biggest job was being piped aboard a naval vessel and splicing the mainbrace whatever that means. Now we have another Minister for the Navy, and I should like him to inform me and my colleagues, as a result of the short experience he has had in his new office, whether or not there is sufficient work to keep him busy as Minister for the Navy.

The Right Honorable Sir Eric Harrison is Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production. Can the leader of the Government in the Senate tell me if that right honorable gentleman’s work is such that it occupies the whole of his time? The position is the same with other Ministers. If Ministers in the Senate were frank with the Opposition and the country, they would admit that many of these portfolios could be brought together under the administration of one Minister. It is political expediency but, when all the hot air has evaporated and vanished, and when all is done, honorable senators know in their heart of hearts that the real reason for increasing the number of Ministers is to placate certain individuals who were knocking at the door and were dissatisfied because they had to remain in the rank and file. Is that not so? “ jos.” Francis was got rid of a fine gentleman for whom I have a great admiration. Because younger men in the House of Representatives wanted to be Ministers, some one had to go and so poor old “ Jos.” was sent over to America. I do not think he wanted to go. I think the Government should have consoled him by making him a knight of the British Empire. I have always admired Mr. Francis. Although we on this side are against the granting of titles, at the same time I was hoping that Josiah Francis would receive a knighthood because I wanted to see his reaction in such circumstances. One of his fellow tories said to me in Brisbane, “ Gordon, if they give Jos. a knighthood he will blow up and burst.” He was got rid of. Mr. Kent Hughes was also got rid of. Why, I do not know. He was put out the door into the cold. After having got rid of those men the Government now comes along and says that it needs 22 Ministers to administer the affairs of this country. I shall leave it at that.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section five of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words” Fortyone thousand pounds “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Fortysix thousand five hundred pounds “.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Following on what I said in my secondreading speech, I move -

That the words “ Fortysix thousand five hundred pounds “ be left out and the words “ Fortyfour thousand five hundred pounds “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Wright’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. ( The Temporary Chairman - Senator I. A. C. Wood.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 February 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560223_senate_22_s7/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant