Senate
20 June 1946

17th Parliament · 3rd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1613

BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As Chairman, I present the twelfth report of the Broadcasting Committee relating to frequency modulation, television, and facsimile broadcasting.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1613

DIE-HEADS

Tariff Board Report

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I lay on the table the report and recommendations of the Tariff Board on the following subject : -

Die-heads - Question of removal from Bylaw admission.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1613

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service read the report in the

Sydney Morning Herald to-day which states that returned soldiers from both world wars were among the 97 persons who attended a meeting at which a Bathurst Unemployed Association was formed ? The report points out that 157 persons, mostly married men, are unemployed in that area this week. On the day on which the association was formed, an advertisement appeared in the Adelaide press, containing a picture of the Prime Minister (Mr Chifley) and his pipe, under which the following words appeared : - “ The Labour Government is making full employment a reality” If the position is as reported at Bathurst, how can the Government reconcile that advertisement with the facts? What action does the Government propose to take to meet the situation?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not read the report to which the honorable senator has referred, but I understand that a week or so ago a shortage of material occurred at. a factory at Bathurst, and that would create some temporary unemployment. The population in that area borders on 20,000,. but apparently only about 100 persons are unemployed. Perhaps the. position there is similar to that which obtained at Lithgow a couple of months ago, when certain complaints were made. About 80 or 90 unemployed persons attended a meeting there, but it. was revealed later that most of them were 60 years of age or over. I shall be happy indeed if the proportion of unemployed in this country continues to be no greater than is indicated by the honorable senator’s question. Should that be so, the position will be vastly different from what it was prior to the war, when over 250,000 Australians were unemployed.

page 1613

QUESTION

FOOTWEAR

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

– In view of the many complaints regarding the high prices and poor quality of footwear, particularly for children, will the Minister . for Supply and Shipping cause inquiries to be made with a view to improving the quality of such goods?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The provision of footwear for Australians is now the responsibility of private enterprise. I shall have inquiries made With a view to Ascertaining why adequate provision has not been made for the -supply of suitable footwear for -children.’

Senator Hf bbert Hays:

– Is there now no control of footwear?

Senator ASHLEY:

– There is now no control.

page 1614

DUTCH VESSEL BONTIKOE

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Supply and Shipping been drawn to the following paragraph in the Melbourne Herald of the 18th June :-

Th« managing director of the Consolidated Export and Import Group of Australia (Mr. J. Litchfield) said to-day that although theK.P.M. line had offered to take an Australian crew to man the Bontikoe in Brisbane for the Singapore run, it was warned that labour to handle the cargo would not be provided.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is out of order for an honorable senator to read lengthy newspaper extracts when asking a question.

Senator LECKIE:

– Is it a fact that the owners of the Bontikoe offered to man the vessel with an Australian crew, . under Australian conditions, in order to ship Australian goods to Singapore? Further, is it a f act that they were warned that labour would not be provided for the skip ? Does the Minister- agree with that procedure, or does he .propose to do something about the matter?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– It is not a .f actthat the ship referred to was to be’ manned by an Australian crew. Had it been suggested that it should be manned by a “ scab “ screw, I agree that there was a possibility of the workers of Australia refusing to handle the cargo.

page 1614

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Licences

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon. notice -

Is it a fact that many ex-servicemen, whose fathers bad given them, or arc prepared to give, them, tracts . of land suitable for wheat growing, have been refused a licence to grow wheat -, if so, will . the Minister direct that such licences be . granted as a means of rehabilitating these men ? -

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture ha? supplied the following answer: -

It is not a fact. Licences have been granted freely both last season and this season. The lifting of restrictions for the 1945-46 crop was announced in October, 1944, and for. this year in May, 1945. During this season alone in Victoria licences for 900,000 acres of excess acreage have been issued, and ex-servicemen can secure licences on application for the area they desire.

page 1614

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

Will the. Minister inform the Senate when the T.8.S. Taroona will complete her refit and resume the service between Victoria and Tasmania ? -

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows :-

It is anticipated that the T.8.S. Taroona will have completed her refitting, and be able to resume in the service about the end of Jul;, or, at the latest, early August.

page 1614

QUESTION

MALTING BARLEY

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister seen the press report of 6th April, 1946, stating that thousands of tons of malting barley imported’ from the United States of America were weevil infested and rapidly deteriorating in storage at Geelong, Victoria?
  2. Will he have an “investigation made into the allegations regarding the above shipment and in regard to the whole position of malting barley in Australia?
Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, has supplied the following answers: -

  1. . No. Maltsters imported a small . proportion of their requirements last year because of the drought shortage, and no reports concerning its condition subsequently have come under .notice. .
  2. No. Australian supplies aTe sufficient for our requirements, and the supply position is kept constantly under review. No investigation is necessary.

page 1615

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th June (vide page 1544), on motion by Senator Cameron -

That the bill be now resid a second time.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– This measure, which we have had an .opportunity to study, is not very extensive, but it establishes a very important practice -so far as parliamentary proceedings are concerned. There was never a time in our history when we felt a greater challenge to our democratic system of’ government than at present. When we appreciate the trials of six strenuous years of war and what the peoples of many countries have experienced, it is pleasing to note that the democratic system of government is sought by more countries to-day than ever before in the world’s history. But we must also recognize that one of the leading powers in the world to-day takes a different view of what is undoubtedly the most desirable form of government. The Englishspeaking peoples, which are charged with great responsibilities in leading the nations of the world along the path of peace, and sponsoring, world endeavours to improve conditions in those countries where’ the people have not had the good fortune to be governed under a democratic system, must always appreciate the importance of democratic government. But whilst we are satisfied that government of the people; by the people, for the people, is the best form of government, both our people and their leaders must accept very great responsibilities. I was interested to read in the press- recently that a certain clergyman in Melbourne had stated that it had been his practice to pray every day for the politicians of this country, but that after reading Hansard . he had decided to pray every day for the people.

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Some politicians pray for the clergy, too.

Senator McLEAY:

– Probably the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Fraser) works overtime in that direction. Every clergyman has a perfect right to express his views, but I would suggest to those cynical individuals who are apt’ to belittle Parliament and politicians, as they are described to-day, that the remedy for whatever shortcomings they believe to exist in our parliamentary institutions is in their own hands. I have no doubt that if the proceedings of this Parliament are conducted on a high standard the broadcasting of debates will be of great educational value and interest to thoughtful people in this country. Therefore, I shall support the bill, the general principles of which I approve But I should like to sound a note of warning to the Government. Members of the Opposition are of the opinion that the proposals contained in this measure are of a nonparty character, and they take a serious view of the Government’s failure to introduce the bill before taking action to provide facilities for the broadcasting of debates. Considerable sums of money have been spent upon the installation of equipment for broadcasting, but only to-day have members of this chamber been given an opportunity to discuss the proposal. This is a matter of principle to which the Government should give serious consideration., On other occasions I have expressed my regret that for many years the Senate has not functioned as it was intended to function by ‘the framers of the Constitution. For that I place a? much blame upon the parties now in opposition as upon the present Government. In this legislature to-day there is too much “ canned “ politics. When a decision has been made by the Labour party caucus, that is the end of the matter. During the eleven years that I have been a member of this chamber not one member of the Labour party has ever had the courage to cross the floor and vote against a caucus decision.

Senator- Collings. - Is there not a caucus in the parties opposite?

Senator McLEAY:

– We have party meetings but, as was evidenced only yesterday, we are not bound hand and foot like honorable senators opposite. This bill is not a party matter, and members of the Labour party should not be bound by the decision of caucus.

I propose at this stage to deal mainly with three clauses of the bill and to ask the Minister in charge of it to give serious consideration to the Opposition’s suggestions for amendments, which we propose to move at the committee stage. I draw attention first to clause 5, which provides for the constitution of the proposed committee. Sub-clause 2 explains my objection. It states^-

One of the members of the Committee shall be the President of the Senate, one member shall be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, of the other seven members of the Committee, two shall he members of, and appointed by, the Senate and five shall lie members of, and appointed by, the House of Representatives.

This matter concerns the privileges of honorable senators, and I make a most emphatic protest against the proposed constitution of the committee and request Senate. Ministers to uphold the rights of the Senate. You, Mr. President, have always endeavoured to protect the privileges of this chamber, which have been established over a long period. The proposal represents a grave injustice to the .Senate, particularly when considered in the light of section 53 of the Commonwealth. Constitution, which provides -that differentiation between the powers of the two Houses of the .Commonwealth Parliament shall be confined principally to legislation dealing with money matters, which cannot be originated in the Senate. Paragraph. 5 of that section of the Constitution states -

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect to all proposed laws.

My objection is further supported by the Standing Orders governing the constitution of other parliamentary committees. Senate Standing Order 34, relating to the library Committee, states -

A Library Committee, to consist of the President and six senators, shall’ be appointed at the commencement of each session, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit us a Joint Committee with a similar Committee of the House of Representatives.

The House of Rep] esentatives Standing Order 320 provides for similar representation for that chamber, namely, Mr.. Speaker and six members. Senate Standing Order 35, dealing with the House Committee, states -

A House Committee, to consist of the President and six senators, shall be appointed at the commencement of each session, with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a Joint Committee with a similar Committee of the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives Standing Order 321 provides for similar representation for that chamber. I ask the Governmeent to give serious consideration to the” objections which I have raised. At the committee stage, I propose to submit an amendment to provide that this important committee shall consist of four members of the Senate and four members of the House of Representatives, and the President and the Speaker. I am not committed to that exact number, but I consider it to be reasonable having regard to the .constitution of other parliamentary committees. I shall not labour this point unduly, because honorable senators must be fully conscious of the importance of the issue at stake. When I had the honour to lead the Government in the Senate, I soon learned that members of the House of Representatives were not fully appreciative of the authority vested in the Senate and the value of the work done in this chamber’. For too long honorable senators have sat back and allowed their rights to be filched from them as the result of consistent and rigid pressure by members’ pf the House of Representatives. I hope that on this occasion we shall stand our ground and insist upon proper recognition being accorded to this cham-ber.- This measure lays the foundations for an extremely important innovation in the parliamentary system, and it is important that the Senate shall play its part equally with the House of Representatives. Clause 13 of the. bill deals with the delegation of certain duties to a subcommittee, and consequently it is a very important clause. If the Government will accept the amendment which I have’ already foreshadowed, it will be necessary to make a consequential amendment in sub-cl’ause 1 of clause 13. The sub-clause is as follows r -

The Committee may delegate to a Subcommittee of the Committee, consisting of two senators and three members of the House, of Representatives, the power to determine days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House of the Parliament shall be broadcast, and any determination of the Sub-Committee, shall, for the purposes of this Act,, be deemed to be a .determination: of the Committee.

I suggest that* instead of two senators and three members of the House of Representatives, there should be three from each branch of the legislature. The proposal is that two members of the sub-committee shall form a quorum, but I recommend that the number should be three. It will be necessary for a sub-committee of this kind to keep a close watch on the proceedings in both chambers from -day to day and from week to week.

According to my interpretation of this clause, read in conjunction with clause 12, the sub-committee should act in accordance with principles laid down by the full committee, those principles having been approved by both Houses of the Parliament. Instead of that, it seems that wide powers will be delegated to the sub-committee. I remind the Government that within two or three months it may occupy the position now filled by members of the Opposition. If the broadcasting of parliamentary debates is to be successful, and appreciated by the public, it is pf the utmost importance that the committee should ensure that its decisions as to times, hours and methods of broadcasting do justice to both Government and Opposition supporters in both branches of the legislature.

This proposal is not intended merely^ to provide amusement for the people. The object should be to induce the public to take increasing interest in parliamentary’ matters and national problems. Members of the Parliament will not do their best unless there is active and intelligent interest in public affairs by a large section of the people. I hope that whoever is given the responsibility of doing this work will appreciate the points that 1 have made. When such- important matters as proposals for alterations of the Constitution are submitted to the people, our legislation now provides that the government of the day shall issue a pamphlet consisting of 2,000 words in explanation of the- proposals. It also requires that a majority of those who object to the proposals shall have a similar right to issue 2,000 words in opposition to them. That is a good principle, and it enables the public to have the two points of view presented to. it. I hope that there will never be an occasion in this Parlia ment when petty arguments will arise as to -whether the government in power has abused the privilege about to be bestowed. This is a matter of high policy. It is of great interest to the members of this and future Parliaments, and to the people of Australia. Clause 14, which is al important provision, states -

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

As the legal officers of the Crown are present to-day, I propose to ask one or two questions on this matter when the bill reaches the committee stage. I presume that this clause implies that it is desired to protect, the members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, members of Parliament, or any other persons who broadcast any portion of the proceedings of this Parliament.

Senator Cameron:

– The Leader of the Opposition can rest assured that I shall do my best.

Senator McLEAY:

– The Minister always does that. The privileges which members of this Parliament enjoy should be jealously guarded, but should be exercised carefully and reasonably. I have had occasion to quarrel with people in this chamber, because I believe that a privilege which is one of the ancient traditions of the British parliamentary system has been abused. I have heard members on both the Opposition and the Government sides, particularly in the House of Representatives, abuse that privilege beyond words. Persons outside this Parliament are sometimes unfairly maligned, and they have no opportunity t to defend themselves.

Senator Clothier:

– That has happened on both sides of politics.

Senator McLEAY:

– Yes. The present. Government Whip in the Senate has never offended in that direction. When statements and speeches made in this Parliament are broadcast throughout Australia and to other parts of the world, they will be heard by an important listening public. I do not know what safeguards can be provided by the Broadcasting Committee, but it should set a high standard and impress on all members of the Parliament that this great privilege entails n heavy responsibility, which has. been increased, to a degree never previously experienced in our parliamentary system. I hope that the Government will give consideration to the suggestions that I have offered on behalf of the Opposition. At the appropriate time I shall have my proposed amendments circulated.

Senator NASH (Western Australia) [3.35 . - The presentation of the Twelfth Report of the Broadcasting Committee by its chairman, Senator Amour, this afternoon, is an indication- of the importance that it now attached to the broadcasting of the spoken word. I welcome this bill because I believe that the innovation that it will establish is long overdue. In ray opinion the broadcasting of parliamentary speeches will he a useful medium -for informing the people of Australia, and, indeed, people overseas also, of the deliberations of the Australian National Parliament. Above ali, the broadcasting of the speeches made in the two chambers of the legislature will enable listeners to hear what is actually said by members, and will tend to remove the temptation to misrepresent what has been said, as has too frequently been yielded to in the past. Moreover, it will correct the tendency to give prominence to,.,the -remarks of certain members, and to ignore what others have said as has been the practice of the press on too many occasions. It will also check the practice of .tearing remarks from their context, thereby creating an entirely false impression of what a speaker has said. [ believe, moreover, that the broadcasting of debates will raise the prestige of our parliamentary institution. ‘In that respect I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that the new system will provide a safeguard against any departure from our democratic system of government. It will educate the people as to what Parliament really is, and thereby make them more politically conscious. The average Australian, as I know him, is well informed on all sporting matters, but a great many Australians would be unable to say who is the head of the Commonwealth Government or the Premier of a State. Many of-‘, them do not realize that this Parliament consists of two Houses; the exis tence of the Senate is unknown to them. The proceedings in the House of Representatives are featured in the press, but the discussions here are given little prominence, chiefly because the news value of a subject is supposed to have lessened since it came before the other branch of the legislature. I believe that as the result of the broadcasting of parliamen- tally speeches the people generally will become more interested in matters which affect their destiny, and will be less inclined to rely on what others tell them. They will not so readily be stampeded into voting in a certain way as the result of propaganda disseminated .by interested parties. A person who listens to the speeches made in this building should gain a fairly clear conception of the work of the Parliament, and of the part played by individual members’ in shaping legislation. It has been suggested that these broadcasts will not offer much in the way of entertainment to the people. That n:ay be so, but I hold the view that the Parliament does not exist to entertain flip people. Nor is it primarily a place for the display of members’ oratorical powers.- Those who will tune in to these broadcasts in the expectation of hearing brilliant oratory will often be gravely disappointed. The average member of Parliament is elected, not because he is an orator, but for entirely different reasons. Some speakers will gain a measure of popularity with listeners, whilst others will not do so. but I think that as the listening public becomes more accustomed tq hearing parliamentary debates, and as members become more familiar with the microphone, the interest in parliamentary proceedings will grow. With parliamentary proceedings on the air I can imagine a passenger travelling by train, or tram saying to the person sitting next to him : “ Did you hear Jones on the air last night speaking in the Commonwealth Parliament? My word,- he put up some splendid arguments. I think he is right”. His fellow passenger may, or may not, agree ; and then the conversation will change to a discussion of the subject on which Jones was speaking. And so the real value of the broadcasting of the speeches made here will be that the work of the Parliament will be placed before the people whose responsibility it is to elect its members, and that greater interest will be taken in the subjects that are .discussed. 1 am sure that as the result of the broadcasting of debates in the Parliament listeners will be enabled to differentiate between what is genuine and what is showmanship. That in itself will be a very great advantage. I was interested in the evidence given to the Broadcasting Committee, of which I am a member, in favour of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, and the views expressed by witnesses as to the manner and duration of such broadcasts. The committee in its eighth report published the evidence which it heard from many witnesses on this subject. Those witnesses included the Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour party, a representative of ‘ the Leader of the Senate, you, Mr. President, the Speaker, the High Commissioner for New Zealand, the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Liberal party in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Australian Country party, the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, the Acting Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs and a number of technical witnesses. The Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), when giving evidence before the committee on behalf of the late Senator Keane, who was then Leader of the Senate, said -

With regard to the reasons for considering the broadcasting of parliamentary debates desirable. I put, first this argument: The Parliament is elected by the people to govern the people. The Parliament disposes of the lives and fortunes of the people. Parliamentarians are really, in effect, playing with live toys. Broadcasts would give the toys an opportunity of knowing how and by whom they were actuated and affected. A full knowledge of these matters hy the people would diminish their toy clement, and would translate them from being the controlled to being the controllers nf their destinies and fortunes. The second point that T make, and T regard it as of considerable importance, is that broadcasting would be a. very great stimulus to individual thought in the community. Many people do little, if any. thinking all the year round, apart from their homes, their work, and their immediate hobbies. The conflict of personalities and ideas in the Parliament would at least excite their interest and, in effect, inevitably force them to make judgments between men and between argu ments; in other words, make them think. I suggest, too, that broadcasts would cure the unavoidable inadequacy of the press reports of parliamentary proceedings. We all deplore the inadequacy of those reports, irrespective of what, side in politics we happen to be on ; but one must recognize that the press could not possibly do justice to the lengthy debates that take place. Broadcasts would have a very healthy influence .on all sections of the press in the direction of presenting both sides of a matter in dispute. It would also give the electors an opportunity to judge the qualities and the calibre of their representatives. I believe that it would - improve the tone, the quality and the content of debates, and would make for keener’ debating.

Honorable senators, I am sure’, will appreciate the force of those views. The committee recommended that the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act be amended to provide that the PostmasterGeneral may direct the commission to broadcast parliamentary proceedings as prescribed. The amendment made it mandatory upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast proceedings in the Senate and in the House of Representatives upon such days and during such periods as the committees provided for in clause 5 of the amending bill determined. I concur with that decision. When giving evidence before the Broadcasting Committee on this point, the Speaker said -

In any event, the Parliament should not surrender to the Australian Broadcasting Commission or any other authority the right to determine when its proceedings should be broadcast.

The Leader of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives, the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden), giving evidence on the same point said -

I say unhesitatingly that whatever broadcasting be done and whatever be the method adopted, the matter should be definitely under the control of the Parliament: in other words, in relation to the House of Representatives, the debates should be, as they are to-day, under the control of Mr. Speaker, and in relation to the Senate they should be under the control of the President. I have not two minds on that point. I am absolutely opposed to a representative of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, or any other body, being the arbiter of what shall go on the air. I agree entirely with Mr. Speaker’s opposition to the picking out of “ high lights . .: n debate.,

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate referred to’ the long-felt want of initiating legislation in1 -if he” Senate.

I -agree ‘with that view. I believe that the main reason for the failure of the press to give publicity to debates in this chamber is the fact that very little legislation is initiated here. I urge the Government to remedy this state of affair.;-. By doing so it will, overcome to a very large degree the fact that to-day publicity is mot given to debates in the Senate because our business conies to us second-hand after be ing debated in the House of Representatives and when such matters are no longer news. In such circumstances -speakers in this chamber are -obliged .more or less to -recapitulate W,ha.t has already been said on such matters in the House of Representatives. Therefore, 1 hope that in -future, particularly as it is now intended to ‘broadcast proceedings in. the Senate, the Government will arrange to initiate more legislation in th’is chamber than has been the case up to the ‘.present. In that respect I shall quote again the remarks -of the Speaker of the House -of Representatives. That .honorable gentleman said -

Therefore, if -parliamentary debates arc to bc broadcast, it would be preferable to alternate the initiation of legislation between the two Houses rather than divide the time; that is to say, introduce some legislation in the Senate when it is now ami other legislation in the House of Representatives. That would ‘maintain interest in the proceedings of the Senate as well as of the -House of Representatives, and would be far preferable to the division of time during the day.

It is apparent from these remarks that the Speaker agrees with the view that has been expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, and to which I subscribe. With a reservation by one member, the Broadcasting Committee recommended in its .report that’ provision bc made for overall control to be vested in the President -of the- Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives over the broadcasting -of the proceedings of their respective chambers. Clause 5 of this bill provides for the setting up of a committee of members of both Houses of the Parliament to determine matters relating “to the broadcasting .©f debates. This committee will consist of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and seven -other members - t-wo from the ‘ Senate and’ five from the House of Representatives. Under clause 12, this committee will be called upon to specify in a report to each House the .general principles upon which broadcasts, should the made from either House and the days .and periods of .such broadcasts. To me, that provision means that the -jurisdiction of the committee, and of the sub-committee provided (for in clause 13, will be confined to the days and periods of [broadcasts. The -suggestion of the Leader of the ‘Opposition that these bodies .would be ^called upon to determine ail! .sorts etf matters .associated with the broadcasting of debates, does not appear to be >correct. The Leader of the Opposition also criticized t!he composition ‘of the proposed committee, and I am inclined to -agree that the Government should give further consideration to this matter ‘with a view ‘to making the ‘Senate representation more .equitable. I hope that when the bill reaches the committee stage action -will be -taken in that -direction. I maintain, however, that the power of the committee -and the sub-committee will be confined to the two masters I have mentioned, namely, the ‘days -on’ which broadcysts will be made from either House, andthe period of the broadcasts

The Broadcasting Committee recommended’ to Parliament that no provision should .be made for .any pre-arranged selection of speakers during the broadcasting o’f debates. In other words, there should ‘be “‘straight’” broadcasts of the proceedings exactly as they occur in the normal transaction of parliamentary business, .with the qualification, that during, divisions and other similar intervals, :»h appropriate official who should be ail officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, should -broadcast .-an impartial .description -of what is taking place. In my view that is most important. I believe that in the interest of. all members of this Parliament, that recommendation should be -given effect. A plan to “highlight” individual members might be all right from the point of view of the listeners - it. ma,y be argued that the featuring of good speakers during the broadcasting of debates would be of educational value to the listening public - but in my opinion such a device would be broadcasting individuals rather than broadcasting parliamentary proceedings, -and would be unfair to other members who desired to have their speeches broadcast. It is essential that the ordinary proceedings of Parliament should be broadcast without undue regard to oratory. If the proceedings of this chamber are “ on the air “ and I am given the call by the President, then my speech should be broadcast. Similarly, if any honorable senator opposite gets the call in his turn, his remarks should be broadcast. There should not be amy differentiation. The public has a right to bear all members of the Parliament, and not just a select few. Ko attempt should be made to depart from the ordinary proceedings of Parliament. In this connexion I shall quote again the views of the Speaker of the House of Representatives who made the following statement to the Broadcasting Committee: -

Another important matter is that the presiding officer has to he completely impartial in giving the call .to members of the House. I disagree with the view that “highlights” should bc put on the air, and that the leaders in- the whips of the parties should be permitted to pick their speakers, and number them, even for the convenience of the public;; because, in the eyes of the Chair, all men arc equal, whether they are good or indifferent speakers, or prominent or ‘less important members of the different parties. The mere fact that the proceedings are being broadcast should not interfere with the complete freedom of speech nf all members. No member should be denied thu right to receive the call when he is entitled to it. The Standing Orders, and all -precedents, lay down that every nian is equal in the eyes of the presiding officer

The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies), who was unable to attend to give oral evidence before the -committee, made the following statement in .a letter to that body : -

Certain further observations should, I think, bc made.

The first is that 1 do not favour a selective broadcasting of Parliament. I would, for example, be strongly opposed to a limited broadcast for certain hours of the sitting. I would also bc very strongly opposed to the confining of the broadcasting to certain selected members on each side. If the broadcasting of Parliament led to a mere building up of a few members on each side, or to a jockeying for position among members so that they might lie called during some limited period when thi; broadcast was on, it would be most undesirable. I therefore believe that either the whole debate each day should be broadcast, or that there should be no broadcast at all.

It may be necessary to change the broadcast from one chamber to the other intermittently, and I consider that the need for changing over must be gauged by the importance ‘of the matters being discussed at the time. The proposed sub-committee might be able to determine this point, but, in my opinion, that would be beyond its province. The decision should rest entirely with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They will be the best judges of the relative importance of the debates. It would be most difficult to lay down a rigid set of rules to deal with the problem. Clause 14 of the bill contains a provision which precludes the possibility of legal action being taken against any person for what may be broadcast. That, of course, applies to all honorable senators and members of the House of Representatives, but the reference to “ any person “ may extend to commentators associated with broadcasts or to other officials of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which ‘ is the vehicle.. for the broadcasting of debates. Although the debates will be under the direct control of Parliament, they will be broadcast through national .broadcasting stations which might, as a result, be held responsible at law for anything transmitted in the service. Realizing the importance of this matter, the Broadcasting Committee was careful to ascertain the exact legal position. It invitedthe then Commonwealth SolicitorGeneral, Sir George Knowles, to give evidence, and in respect of this subject he said -

I think that if the whole of the proceedings of Parliament, not small selected portions, were broadcast, a qualified privilege would apply to the broadcast. There would not be an absolute privilege, lt might be well to illustrate this point by reference to what was done with respect to Ilansard. In 1935, Parliament passed a bill providing that the Hansard report of parliamentary proceedings should be absolutely protected, ft was declared by that act that each House of the Parliament should be deemed to have authorized the Government Printer to publish the report of debates and proceedings in that House.

He also said -

Seeing that Parliament, in its wisdom, has provided for the absolute protection of Hansard reports, I consider that, if it is desired to make the privilege of the broadcasting of debates absolute, it would be wise to provide for the protection of broadcasts of parliamentary debates by specific legislation.

A3 the result of that advice, the Govern ment has included the provision made in clause 34. I shall reserve any further comments on the bill until it reaches the committee stage. I hope that the measure will have the wholehearted support of all honorable senators. The scheme will be in the best interests of the people of Australia, and I believe that the broadcasts of parliamentary debates will bring about a higher conception of our national ideals and aspirations and a betterment of our parliamentary institutions.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I am sorry that the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) is not present to hear the speeches of honorable senators. I believe that he could have obtained a great deal of valuable information from the speech of Senator Nash. The broad-

Clause 14, to which Senator Nash has referred, is a dangerous provision. It gives to broadcasters the same protection from legal action as that afforded to members of the Parliament. Some outride station with political bias might take « statement from its context just prior to an election, and it would be impossible to catch up with it, and therefore broadcasters of parliamentary proceedings should be made liable to the same penalties as those for which one could be held responsible if bis statements were uttered publicly outside this Parliament.

Senator Nash:

– The protection applies only to speakers in either branch of the legislature.

Senator GIBSON:

– It could apply to speakers from radio stations or to rebroadcasts, and I see danger in the provision. One or two clauses in the bill seem to me to conflict with certain provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Act. I refer particularly to sections 63 and 90 and one or two others. Some of the clauses of the bill may even go so far as to prohibit the press from publishing statements made in this Parliament. Possibly the press could not publish any broadcast by a national station. I hope that the press will not be

1UO]

prevented from exercising the right which it now enjoys to publish any statement made in this Parliament. Several amendments will be submitted from the Opposition side at the committee stage. I hope that the representation of the Senate on the sub-committee will be on the same footing as that of the House of Representatives

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– This measure has been introduced as the result of many changes which are constantly taking place throughout the world. The aeroplane has annihilated distances in the transport of passengers and goods from one part of the world to another, and the radio has made it possible for speeches made on one side of the world to be heard practically simultaneously on the other side. People in countries which in the past have been considered isolated from the rest of the world now, in effect, find themselves in close proximity to one another. In Australia, with its great distances, the Commonwealth Parliament has been looked upon by many of the electors, especially in the more remote parts of this country, as a body which meets in a distant portion of Australia, and conducts the affairs of the country quite apart from the people, when actually this Parliament should be the focal point of the nation. The people know little of the business and conduct of their National Parliament. Electors in Queensland have often asked me when am I going back to Melbourne. Many do not realize that, this Parliament meets at the National Capital at Canberra. In many cases the general public has no knowledge as to whether the National Parliament is sitting or is in recess. The fact that the proceedings of this Parliament will in future be broadcast, will create a far greater public interest in them. than in the past.

The press of Australia has given good daily reports of the happenings in this Parliament, but it does not supply entirely the wants of the average citizen. I am confident that, as the result of the broadcasting of our proceedings, increased interest will be taken in this Parliament, and also in the press reports relating to it. It often happens that only the sensational occurrences in the Parliament are reported in the press. If the proceedings in both branches of the legislature arebroadcast, the people will take a keen interest in them. According to a report of’ the Broadcasting Committee this (innovation has proved of considerable value in New Zealand, and the people of (hat dominion appreciate the opportunity afforded them. The broadcasts have educated the people to be more, politically minded than in the past. If these broadcasts have been found desirable in New Zealand, they are even more necessary in a country of such vast distances as those in Australia. Many people who live a long way from Canberra consider themselves too far removed from the National Capital to take an active interest in the National Parliament, but when they can tune their radios to enable them to hear parliamentary debates they will take a keener interest than in the past in the speeches of their elected representatives.

The object of this bill is to establish a body which will have the responsibility of’ evolving a fair method of broadcasting the proceedings in this Parliament. I strongly support’ the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that this chamber should have equal representation with the other branch of the legislature on any committee that may be set up to work out the general principles which will govern the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. Obviously, with the facilities now available it will be impossible to broadcast from both Houses simultaneously. I understand ‘that the cost of providing a separate broadcasting station to deal with parliamentary de’bates would be about £500,000, < and therefore the existing national net-work will have to be used for the purpose. I agree with the recommendation of the Broadcasting Committee that ‘the proceedings of -the Parliament should be broadcast exactly, as they .’occur ‘in the normal transaction of parliamentary business. It is proper that ‘the public should be- given a clear and accurate picture of the -normal proceedings of the Parliament from day to day .and that no -special showmanship should be attempted .merely to provide a specially .attractive .programme. In >the long run, I ‘arn -confident that the public would .appreciate genuine -broadcasts of the proceedings here from day to (lay. In the committee stage I shall deal with a few aspects of the .bill, which are better discussed then. I am glad that effect is to be given to the .recommendations of the Broadcasting ‘Committee, and I look for- ward to the time ‘when the proceedings of-‘both Houses of this Parliament will be broadcast simultaneously.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The absence from the chamber for a considerable time this afternoon of the Minister in charge of the bill and of other Government supporters is probably an indication that the Government intends that this measure must.be accepted in. its present form, and that suggestions “by Opposition -senators will receive little or no consideration. If that be so, it is in keeping with the insult, to the Senate which is contained in clause 5. That clause -contemplates the appointment of a joint committee to control the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, but I hope that it does not represent the fixed view of the Government. In some respects tho bill seems to have .been clumsily drawn. I believe -that the principle of broadcasting -the proceedings of the Parliament is a good -one,- and that the effect of such broadcasts will be good, but werriust be careful to ensure that the broadcasts shall be honest and that no special favours will be given to Ministers or others. Unless the broadcasts give a true picture of the workings of both Houses they will serve.no good purpose; indeed, such a practice would only tend to deceive the people. The whole of a day’s proceedings of one House should be given rather “than that there should be any switch-over from one House to the other on any -day. The bill proposes to give to the House of Representatives a distinct advantage over the -Senate in that the former is to ‘have .-greater numerical representation on the proposed joint com?mittee which will control parliamentary broadcasts. A .committee so constituted will .have a. natural inclination to favour the other chamber. The clause as drafted almost amounts to a direction that the House of .Representatives will be given twice as much time on the air as will bo allotted to the Senate. . The bill should be redrafted to remove that anomaly.

The Senate - should not agree to play second fiddle to the House of Representatives. I an:i aware th’at in the other chamber there are more members than in the Senate, and that the debates there are longer and- more continuous than in this chamber^ but I hope that the Leader of the Senate will be jealous of the rights and privileges of this clamber, and neither- wittingly ivor unwittingly will allow the prestige of the- Senate to be lowered in the eyes of the electors. It would appear, too, that some of the provisions of the bill have been drafted without relation to the Australian Broadcasting Act. Clauses .12 and 13 appear to- conflict. The former sets out the functions of the committee . which is to be appointed to control the broadcasting of debates, whilst clause 13 gives exactly the same powers to a sub-committee of that committee. The two clauses require clarification, because as at present drafted they are likely to lead to trouble.

Clause- 1-4 contains an important provision. It- reads -

No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of tin; Purl iii ment.

Obviously, that clause has been inserted in- order to protect the Australian Broadcasting Commission”.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– - And also members of Parliament;

Senator LECKIE:

– It has- nothing to do with members, who are-protected- under another? clause.. Clause 14 does not prevent another broadcasting station from pinking up the broadcasts” from this building and rebroadcasting portions of a member’s speech to: suit- a particular purpose or: to serve-special interests. That defect shouldbe remedied.. It is true’ that section’ 93 of lire- Australian Broadcasting Act provides’ that- no other: station shall broadcast what is. transmitted- by a broadcasting station without the consent of the: owner of that station and’ the approval’ of the Minister, but that safeguard could- easily be. overcome.. Should a. portion of the proceedings1 in either House be taken from its-‘ context and broadcast without any explanation, irretrievable damage -could be done to a political party or an individual. I, therefore; propose to move in committee that the provisions of clause 14 shall not apply to ally rebroadcasting by another station of matter broadcast from this Parliament. Tha’t will prevent unfairness in rebroadcasting. Indeed, I believe that rebroadcasts of that” kind should be prohibited altogether. 1 realize that the broadcasting* of parliamentary proceedings will place press reporters in a peculiar position. Possibly, they will develop the technique of keeping their ear to the telephone instead of to the ground. Section 92 of the Australian Broadcasting Act provides - . . where the Minister lias reason to believe that any person has rendered for broadcasting any item, or has passed or has selected for broadcasting any matter broadcast from any broadcasting station, which has caused or may have caused offence to any section of the public, lie may call- upon’ thai person to show cause . . .

I cannot conceive of proceedings in the Senate or in the House of Representatives continuing’, for “.days without .some statemerits being made that would cause offence to some political -section of the community. What does the Government propose to do about that provision? Apparently it has. also overlooked section 9’3 of the Australian Broadcasting’ Act, -which read’s -

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

How will the newspapers fare under that provision? Under that . section they are not allowed to publish anything that has’ been broadcast from any station,- without the approval’ of the Minister. Has’ the Minister considered these existing provisions? Is he fully aware of the relation between the- Australian Broadcasting Act and. this measure ? He must admit that anomalies will arise in respect of the matters- I have mentioned’. He cannot prevent the press from publishing reports of the ordinary proceedings in the Parliament, either in tile Senate- or’ the House of’ Representatives. I should imagine that he did not contemplate this difficulty when this bill was- being drafted, and’ did not take into full’ consideration the existence of these provisions which ! have cited. Once having been broadcast from the Senate or the House of Representatives, debates cannot be published or used by any newspaper or any one else. Unless that position is rectified under this measure grave difficulties will arise. In those circumstances the Minister .- should indicate his preparedness to accept amendments designed to rectify’ such anomalies, or, alternatively, to withdraw the measure and redraft it after considering these difficulties. I do not believe that .any urgency exists for the passage of this bill. It will not really matter whether it is passed this week, next week or the week after. The people have done without these broadcasts for so long, and it would be wiser to ensure that we get off to a proper start rather than rush the bill through when, as I pointed out, no provision is made to reconcile the .measure with important provisions in the Australian Broadcasting Act. In these circumstances the Minister would- be wise to accept amendments on these matters, or he should withdraw the bill and have it redrafted to overcome the difficulties T have indicated. In view of the facts I have enumerated, the bill is crudely drawn. It contains several grave anomalies, and the sooner the Government becomes aware of that fact the better.

As I have already said, I believe that ultimately the broadcasting of proceedings in the Parliament will be a good thing; but the people must be assured that legislation which is being enacted for this purpose to give them additional privileges will not deprive them of privileges which they already enjoy.

Senator Collings:

– Nothing in the measure will destroy any existing privilege enjoyed by the people.

Senator LECKIE:

– Under the Australian Broadcasting Act the press is prohibited from publishing anything that is broadcast over the air. We must be careful not to take away any existing privilege from the people, in our attempt to give them additional’ benefits. We must also ensure that the presentation of proceedings in the Parliament over the air will give a fair and accurate account of what actually occurs in the Parliament. I repeat that the possibility of unfair allocation of broadcasting time, between the Senate ‘arid the House of Repre sentatives leads me, and . the people whom I represent, to’ believe that the bill, failing to do justice in that respect between the two- Houses, will generate the suspicion among members of the Opposition that justice will not be done as between political parties, and, consequently, the broadcasting of proceedings in Parliament will not give a true account of what actually occurs in the Parliament. There has been some wild talk about how the days and hours for broadcasting are to be manipulated, whether Ministers shall have preference, and all that sort of thing. I believe that the ordinary proceedings of Parliament should be broadcast in their entirety, and that speakers should be heard, as they are now, as they receive the call from the presiding officers. There should not be any switching of broadcasts between the two Houses on the one day. A full day’s proceedings each week in. each House should be. broadcast from the opening to the close of the sitting. If this cannot be done, the proposal to broadcast proceedings of Parliament should be abandoned altogether. At least one full day a week should be allocated to each House.

Sena<tor James McLachlan. - Why not broadcast the full proceedings in each House every day it sits?

Senator LECKIE:

– That would be better; but I understand that too many difficulties would arise on the technical side to enable that to be done. I repeat that proceedings in either House will not be fairly presented over the air unless a full day’s , proceedings are broadcast. T again urge the Minister to accept amendments along t’he lines I have indicated; or, alternatively, he should indicate his preparedness to withdraw the bill and redraft it in order to rectify anomalies which I have mentioned with respect to rebroadcasts and the publication in the press of matter which has been broadcast. I sincerely hope that the measure as finally passed will ensure absolute fairness to all parties and to both Houses in the .presentation of broadcasts, and that, ac- we anticipate, this development will prove to the benefit of the people and enable them to obtain a better idea of what their representatives are doing, as well as some idea of the- calibre of their representatives. This will result in raising the standard of parliamentary representation. I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of what I have said.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I believe that all honorable senators will regard this measure, as I hope the listening public will regard it, as a forward step which will enable proceedings in the Parliament to be made known to the greatest possible number of our people. I expected that more honorable senators opposite would want to speak to the measure. Perhaps Ave can take their attitude in that respect as an indication of the attitude they will adopt towards the Opposition when the broadcast of proceedings in this chamber are in full swing. The ideal in respect of the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings would be to broadcast the complete proceedings in both Houses. However, this cannot be done because sufficient channels are not available. It remains for honorable senators to ensure that in this matter the prestige of the Senate as observed in the Constitution will bc. fully maintained. Although the two branches of this legislature are equal in status, most honorable senators will agree that in the past members of this chamber have been at a disadvantage in placing before the people of this country their views on the many important matters that come before us, and giving a clear picture of the useful part that the Senate has played in the government of this country. I agree with Senator. Leckie that this measure does not give to. this chamber equal control with the House of Representatives over the broadcasting of debates. Broadcasting times are most important, and the only fair way to. allocate them, in my opinion, would be to set. aside separate days for the broadcasting of the proceedings of each chamber, or to ensure in. some other way that members of both Houses would have equal opportunity to hp heard on the air. It must be remembered, too, that there will be occasions on which the Senate will not be sitting and the full broadcasting time will lie available to the House of Representatibes. I believe that the clause of this measure providing for the appointment of a committee to make recommendations? in regard to days upon which broadcasts shall be made, and the periods of the broadcasts, should be amended to provide for more adequate representation of the Senate. That is the most important part of the bill. Apart from the fundamental’ principles of broadcasting parliamentary proceeding’s this is really a committee bill. But I join with other honorable senators in protesting against the Government’s action in expending substantial sums of money upon the provision of broadcasting equipment in this building before presenting this measure to Parliament for approval.

Senator Gibson:

– The equipment is temporary.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– “What did it cost?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– Perhaps the. Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron), when replying to this debate, will have something to say about that. Estimates ranging from £10,000 to £12,000 are being freely mentioned, and I submit, that members of this Parliament are entitled to some information on that matter. I support the bill, but, I shall support certain amendments that have been foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition (‘Senator M’cLeay) and other honorable senators on this side of thi chamber.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– This bill is somewhat unique. Apparently, all arrangements for the broadcasting of debates were made before the preparation of this legislation. During the last period of this session, we had placed before us much legislation which obviously emanated from sources outside of this Parliament. This bill is another striking example of that unfortunate practice. The Government’s lack of courtesy in failing to consult the Opposition on the broadcasting of parliamentary debates is greatly regretted by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. The broadcasting of parliamentary debates no doubt will be of great educational value to the people of this country, but much of the benefit will be lost owing to the piecemeal method proposed in this legislation. In fact, the’ only real purpose of the bil] is to provide for, the setting up of the committee which’ is to be charged with the duty of allocating broadcasting times. lt will be the duty of that, committee to determine when our .speeches ure to be broadcast.

Reference has been made to the broadcasting of parliamentary debates in New Zealand. 1 understand that these broadcasts have met with considerable success; but in that dominion, .Parliament is on the air from the time it meets until it adjourn.?. I would prefer to have the proceedings of the House of Representatives or of the Senate broadcast for the full time available rather than have the broadcasts switched from one House to the other in accordance with the wishes of the proposed committee. The composition of the committee has been severely criticized by my colleagues, and rightly so. I agree that this chamber should have equal representation with the House of Representatives on the. committee, Until the committee is appointed and has considered the question of broadcasting times, we will not know how we are to be treated. I agree with Senator Leckie that the Senate should be given much more information in regard to this matter than has been placed before it so far. I do not altogether agree with the view expressed by Senator Leckie in regard to clause 14, which states - “No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against any- person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House nf Parliament.

In my opinion that provision has been inserted to protect the right of a member of Parliament to speak his mind without fear of prosecution. Senator Leckie has struck a new note with his quotation from (hp Australian Broadcasting .Commission Act, section 93 of which provides that newspapers shall be debarred from publishing anything that lias been broadcast. If “ the honorable senator’s view be correct, on days when the proceedings of Parliament, are broadcast the press will have a holiday because newspapers will be prevented from publishing reports of members’ speeches. I consider, therefore, that this measure may require amending.

T understand that Senator Nash, who is a member of the Broadcasting Coin mi iter, advocated that the Speaker the House of Representatives and thi President of the Senate should determine what speakers should be given the call when Parliament is on the air. That would be most unfair. If the precedings of the Parliament are to be broadcast, speakers should be given the call from the Chair in the usual manner, f am not opposed to the principles of the bill. I believe that the broadcasting of parliamentary debates will be of some benefit, to this country, and will give to the listening public a wider knowledge of politics. Possibly, there will be occasions when listeners will hear things which” will not redound to the credit, of either House of this legislature, but of course, in that regard, I speak mainly of the other chamber. Possibly, the knowledge that parliamentary proceedings are on the air will improve the manner in which business is conducted. The Postmaster-General would be wise to give serious consideration to the suggestions that have been made by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. When the bill reaches . the committee stage we shall endeavour to makeit a more reasonable and more useful one to the people generally. Acceptance of the Opposition’s proposed amendments would improve the bill considerably. Senator Nash, whom I assume was speaking on behalf of the BroadcastingCommittee, said that when divisions were being taken, or during similar intervals between speeches an announcer would describe to the listening public what was happening. I believethat only members of the Parliament are entitled to speak in the Parliament, and I should like to know who will be charged with the responsibility of making the announcements referred to.

Senator Nash:

– So far as I know the man in charge of the controls will do that.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN.Then provision should be made in this bill for that to .be done. I fail to see how any one other than a member of the Parliament could describe what was happening.

Senator Nash:

– In New Zealand there is an announcer on the floor of the chamber.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– No doubt provision is made for that in the relative broadcasting legislation, but no such provision is made in this bill. If there is to be an announcer, the duties of such an official should be set out in the bill. I hope that the Government will give full consideration to the amendments that have been foreshadowed by honorable senators on this side of the chamber.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

“5.15. - *in reply - I. am gratified that honorable senators have indicated their approval of the broadcasting of parliamentary debates. I believe that we all are in general agree7 ment on the policy outlined in the bill. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that the broadcasts will do much to arouse greater public interest in the proceedings of this Parliament. Interest is the strongest motive power in the individual and it follows logically that the interest of the people represents the strongest voting power. I foresee that, when important problems of a highly contentious nature are being discussed in Parliament, people will listen to the broadcasts with a great deal of interest. Possibly, as the result of this, we shall find that Hansard will be much more widely read. The moment that a person’s interest is aroused it usually stimulates a desire to be further informed. This breeds a desire to study more critically and more closely the matter that aroused interest in the first place. I admit that there is merit in some of the points that have been raised by honorable senators opposite. I shall riot deal with them now, but will do so at the committee stage. I assure honorable senators that this is a non-party bill. The Government has nothing to gain, but everything to lose, by attempting in any way to suppress the voice of the Opposition. It has everything to gain by providing the Opposition with every facility, within the limitations laid down, to express opinions and ideas on all questions* Therefore, I suggest to honorable senators who fear that they will not receive fair treatment in the broadcasting of debates that they have nothing to justify that fear. This Government has never resorted to the use of the guillotine since it has been in power. It has never attempted to “gag” honorable senators opposite. That cannot be said truthfully of the present’ Opposition when it occupied the Government benches. The late Senator Keane, as Leader of the Senate, saw that no member of the Opposition who wished to speak on any subject was denied the opportunity to do so. All the evidence goes to show that in the future the’ Opposition will continue to receive the same fair treatment as it has received in the past. I assure the Senate that, when I absented myself from the chamber during this debate, I had no intention of being discourteous to any honorable senator. Nobody can justly accuse me of having been discourteous at any time to any honorable senator. I would have nothing to gain by acting in such a manner. I have never attempted to make a. personal issue of an obviously political, or impersonal, matter. When 1 left the chamber this afternoon, [ had to confer with the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) on matters that were of even greater importance than this bill. 1 asked the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator J. M. Fraser) to act on my behalf during my absence. I could not be expected to do more than that. Immediately I was free to do so, I returned to the chamber. I regret that the opportunity was seized by Senator Leckie and Senator Gibson to suggest that I was influenced by ulterior motives, or that I was discourteous.

Senator Gibson:

– I have never known a Minister in charge or a bill to leave the chamber whilst it was being debated.

Senator CAMERON:

– I have never evaded arguments adduced by the honorable senator; and I shall never do so. I have the right to expect from the honorable gentleman the 1 same degree of courtesy that I extend to him. That is all I ask. L say that also to Senator Leckie. I have endeavoured to set a good example, and I hope that, some effort will be made by honorable senators opposite to follow it.

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister will soon have a halo.

Senator CAMERON:

– It is not a question of having a halo, but of being fair and refraining from trying to make political propaganda out of the temporary absence of a Minister from the chamber. The matter was probably raised by the honorable senators concerned in the hope that they would be given head line publicity in the newspapers because they had discredited, although unjustly, a member of the Government. There is nothing statesmanlike about thai sort of thing. It is petty, contemptible and cowardly, and men who resort to such action should be ashamed of themselves. I regret that 1 have had to speak in this way, but I feel very keenly abour the matter particularly as I have never attempted to treat any honorable senator discourteously. In the circumstances, I am justified in making a very moderateprotest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. .

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings).

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– Would this be an appropriate time for the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) to reply to the points that were raised during the second-reading debate by Senator Leckie with regard to sections 02 and 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act? We should like to be informed regarding the effect of this clause, particularly in relation to restrictions on the press. We want to hear a legal opinion, or the opinion of the Minister on the subject.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– Clause 4 deals with the stations that will be used to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament. The points raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) can be dealt with when the committee is considering clauses 14 and 1».

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- Provision is made in this clause for the use of only national stations for the broadcasting of debates. However, according to the statement of the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) these stations will be able to give a coverage of -only 60 per cent, of radio listeners. Commercial stations could be used to carry the broadcasts to the remaining 40 per cent., but those stations are purposely excluded from the scheme by this clause. I should like provision to be made for commercial stations to be used in order to extend the coverage of the broadcasts to outback districts not at present, served by national stations. The men and women of the outback are probably more entitled to receive the broadcasts than city residents who are able to buy daily newspapers. I should like to see- provision made so that these people will not be totally excluded.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

[5.2SJ. - Clause 4 appears to me to do no more than compel the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament at the times that the committee contemplated by the bill requires it to do fo. That does not, prevent arrangements being made with commercial broadcasting stations to broadcast the debates. There is nothing to prevent the commercial stations doing so, except section 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act, to which, happily,, Senator Gibson has drawn attention. Section 93 of that act provides that no other station or person may publish the text of what, has been broadcast by one station’ without the consent of the licensee and’ without the consent of the Minister. The clause that the’ committee is considering does no more than remove what might be described as the right of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast what it considers fit. It merely imposes on the commission the obligation to broadcast, when required to do so by a committee appointed by both Houses of the Parliament.

Senator McLeay:

– That point, is quite clear, but will the Minister indicate whether this is the appropriate stage to discuss the points raised by Senator Leckie ?

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest not. The matter arises in respect of clauses 14 and 15. Full opportunity will be afforded by the Minister without question. The Opposition has rendered a service in drawing attention to the possible effect of section 93 of the act.

Senator Gibson:

– This provision applies only to national stations.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Not at all. It merely compels the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast something which, without this clause, it could not be compelled to broadcast.

Senator Gibson:

– But from national stations.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes, and private stations may, with the consent of the commission, and of the Minister, join in the broadcasts.

Senator Gibson:

– The commission could make use of the commercial stations.

Senator McKENNA:

– It could do so if the consent of the two authorities mentioned were forthcoming.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– The estimate that 60 per cent, of the listeners could tune in to the broadcasts is believed to be a conservative one. The engineers in charge’ of broadcasting cannot say positively whether the number will be greater than 60 per cent., but. it is believed that it will be considerably more than that. The broadcasts will be largely experimental for the present. The engineers will be informed on the matter by . the reception from various stations from which reports will be obtained. It is estimated that a reliable service will be provided at all times by the seven transmitters from which it is proposed that the broadcasts shall be made at the outset. During the night broadcasts .this percentage will be subsequently increased by means of the secondary services. It is’ difficult to estimate the additional number ‘ of listeners to whom the service will be available during the night broadcasts, but it may be said that a considerable proportion of those country listeners who may be anxious to listen to the debates will be able to do so. It. is quite within the powers of the commission to use additional stations, if it considers that necessary, or if a request for that is made.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- In his second-reading speech, the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) indicated that the broadcasting would be confined, to the national stations. I rose to ask’ whether the commercial stations could be brought into the same network for the purpose of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings. I am glad that the

Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) has now said that, notwithstanding the statement by the Postmaster-General, the commercial stations may be employed to provide a wider coverage.

Senator CAMERON (Victoria- PostmasterGeneral) [5.34J. - The position has been correctly stated by Senator Gibson. A beginning will be made on the national stations, and, if the experiment proves successful, and a demand arises for further facilities in order to cover a wider field, provision in that respect can be made.

Senator COOPER (Queensland) [5.35 J. - Obviously a certain expenditure will be required to cover the cost of broadcasting parliamentary debates. Can the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) inform the committee what cost has been incurred up to the present?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– The cost has yet to be ascertained, but the Government has already voted £10,000 for the purpose of installing the equipment required to carry out the broadcasts. I do not imagine that the total cost will be heavy.

Clause agreed to.

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

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I indicated in my second-reading speech that I intended to move amendments to this clause. I now move -

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

The Senate and the House of Representatives should have equal representation on the committee. 1 shall be greatly disappointed if honorable senators opposite will not support my amendment. We should preserve the privileges of honorable senators and maintain the long-established practice, which has been adopted in the appointment of standing committees such as the Library and Printing Committees, of giving equal representation to both branches of the legislature.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I hope that honorable senators will unanimously accept the amendment. We now have an opportunity to give effect to the view which we have all expressed from time to time that the Senate is equal in importance to the other branch of the legislature. The Senate is elected on the same franchise, and I believe that this is an opportunity to give effect to a principle embodied in the Constitution. Whether as much publicity is given to the proceedings in the Senate as to those in the House of Representatives has been dependent in the past on the estimate of the press representatives as to the news value of proceedings in the Senate. Of course we have no control over that. Measures dealt with” in the Senate have often been debated previously in the other chamber, and the discussion here is not regarded by the press as news. This bill affects every honorable senator. Party political considerations do not arise, and we should view this matter with due regard for the status of this chamber. Proper recognition should be given to the privileges of honorable senators. The Senate should, not be placed at any disadvantage in the use of broadcasting for the conveyance to the people of a proper conception of proceedings in the National Parliament. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Senator O’FLAHERTY (South Australia) T5.43]. - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) stated that the general practice has been to give equal representation to the Senate and the House of Representatives on various parliamentary committees. That, may be the case in connexion with standing committees, but for some years equal representation has not been accorded to both branches of the legislature on all committees. The Broadcasting Committee, which is a joint statutory committee, has six members of the House of Representatives and only three honorable senators. A proposal is now made for the appointment of a statutory joint committee. Only three of the nine members of the Public Works Committee are honorable senators. I rose only to refute the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that it is the general practice to have equal representation of the two Houses on committees. That is not the practice. The Social Security Committee consists of seven members, three of whom are senators and four members of the House of Representatives. Of the seven members of the War Expenditure Committee only two are senators, the other five being member? of the other chamber.

Senator Sampson:

– - Neither of those committees has anything to do with the privileges of members.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As I have said, the statement of the Leader of the Opposition was not correct; but it is still possible to give equal representation to the two Houses. I believe that that should be done.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– As I intimated in. my reply to the second-reading debate, there is merit in the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay). I accept the principle that there should be equal ‘representation of the two Houses, but in my judgment a committee of ten members would be too unwieldy. I propose, therefore, to ‘move that, in addition to the two presiding officers, there shall be two members from each House on the committee. On no previous occasion has the Opposition expressed so forcibly the view that in these appointments each House should have the same representation. The Broadcasting Committee has six members of the House of Representatives and only three senators. The same position, exists with the Public Works Committee. The only committees which have equal representation of both Houses are the House Committee, the Library Committee and the Printing Committee. It is possible that in the past representation has been on the basis of the number of members in each House rather than that each House should have a similar number ofrepresentatives on them. Whatever the reason, a precedent has been established by a previous government and the present Government thought that that precedent, rather than a different basis, would be favoured by the Parliament. However, at the appropriate time I shall move, as I have indicated.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I am pleased that the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron)has agreed that the representation of the two Houses on this important committee, which will deal with the privileges of members, shall be equal, and in view of his intention to move an amendment to that effect,I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I am glad that the Minister has recognized the equality of the two branches of the legislature, but his proposed amendment, providing for only two members from each House in addition to its presiding officer, would leave the Australian Country party without any representation on the committee.

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We have been told that this is not a party matter.

Senator GIBSON:

– In my opinion, the first proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that there should be four members of each House on the committee, in addition to the two presiding officers, is better than the amendment foreshadowed by the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron). Should the committee consist of only six members, it will not be much larger than the proposed subcommittee. I claim that the Australian Country party is entitled to representation on the committee.

A mend m en t -bylea v e - w i thd r aw n .

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

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

Should my amendment be agreed to,I shall then move that sub-clause 2 be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new sub-clause: -

One of the members of the committee shall be the President of the Senate, one member shall be the Speaker of the House of Represen tatives, and, of the other four members of the committee, two shall be members of, and appointed by the Senate, and two shall be members of,and appointed by, the House of Representatives.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted my suggestion. A committee of six members will be too small. Moreover, the committee may wish to meet when only the House of Representatives is sitting, and should the three Senate members not be available, it would be without a quorum. On further reflection, I think that the Minister will agree that a committeeof eight members would be more satisfactory, and I appeal to him to amend his amendment accordingly.

Sitting suspended from 5.54 to8 p.m.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral. · Victoria · ALP

Senator Gibson should be prepared to meet the Government in this matter in view of the fact that the proposition is largely experimental, and we must be guided by results rather than assume that certain things are likely to happen. I assure him and any other honorable senator who may entertain any doubt about the matter that the Government will do all that is humanly possible, and what it considers to be necessary, to ensure that each party in the Parliament shall receive fair treatment. Should it be found subsequently that the amendment which I propose is not workable, the proposal embodied in it will not be the last word on the subject so far as the Government is concerned. I believe that I make a reasonable request in asking Senator Gibson to accept that assurance.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I regret that the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) cannot see his way clear to adopt my suggestion. If he is adamant, I accept his assurance that the matter will be considered in the light of experience. However, he is bound to find that at times the Senate will not be sitting, with the result that only three members will be available to conduct this experiment, whilst it is possible that one of those three members may be absent for certain periods. That would mean that a committee of two would really deal with the matter; and such a committee,I submit, is altogether too small for this purpose. I tlo not believe that a committee of eight would be too large. However, the Minister appears to have made up his mind, and no doubt his decision will prevail; but I am sorry that he has not seen fit to increase the number of the members of the committee to eight. At the same time, I give him credit for providing for equality of representation as between the two Houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Cameron) agreed to -

That sub-c!ause (2.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereto the following subclause : - “ (2.) One of the members of the Committee shall be the President of the Senate, one member shall be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, of the other four members of the Committee, two shall be members of; and appointed by, the Senate and two shall he members of, and appointed by, the House of Representatives “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10-

At any meeting of the Committee -

live members shall form a quorum;

Amendment (by Senator Cameron) agreed to -

That, in paragraph («). the word “five” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “three”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Functions of Committee).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

This clause reads - (1.) The Committee shall consider and specify in a. report presented to each House of the Parliament, the general principles upon which there should be determined the days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall bc broadcast. (2.) The Committee shall, in accordance with general principles specified by the Committee and adopted by each House of the Parliament, determine the days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House of the Parliament shall be broadcast.

I should like to know whether the committee cannot function until it has reported to both Houses and received approval of its report by both Houses?

Senator Cameron:

– That is so.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– -Does the clause refer solely to the matter of determining the days, upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House . shall be broadcast?

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- Does this provision mean that the committee is to submit only one report ? The clause says “ a “ report. M!ay the committee bring in a series of reports?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– In my secondreading speech. I said -

It will be appreciated that a number of details has to be settled in connexion with the apportionment of broadcasting time between both Mouses of the Parliament when they are sitting simultaneously, and in regard to the rights of members, technical and programme arrangements, and other points mentioned by the Broadcasting Committee.

These are details which will have to be considered by the committee on their merits. I repeat that the proposal is experimental, and it will depend upon the results achieved, and the views of the committee and of the Parliament, as to whether a procedure which may be laid down will be carried on or should be altered in the interests of members. -Senator LECKIE (Victoria) [S.ll].The clause provides that the committee shall determine the days upon which,, and the periods during which, the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast. It is also provided that the committee shall report on such matters to the Parliament and that its report must be approved by Parliament. However, clause 13 provides that the committee may delegate to a sub-committee its power to determine the clays upon which and the periods during which the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast. Both the committee and the sub-committee are to have that power; but whilst the committee must obtain the approval of the ‘Parliament in respect of these matters, it would appear that, under clause 13, the sub-committee will npt be obliged to obtain similar approval. This matter should be clarified.

Senator Cameron:

– The committee will lay down the policy and principles, and the sub-committee will give effect, to them.

Senator LECKIE:

– That may be the intention, but under clauses 12 and 13 both the committee and’ the subcommittee will enjoy ‘equal power of determining the days upon which, and the periods during which, proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast. If it were provided that the sub-committee could determine all other details, I should be satisfied; but it does not seem right that the subcommittee should have the same power without being subject to the same check by the Parliament as is to be applied to the committee itself.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I am not satisfied that the committee will be enabled to furnish more than one report. As this matter, as the PostmasterGeneral has pointed out, is experimental, I. have no doubt, that, it will be found necessary to carry out further experiments subsequent to the making of its first report. Therefore, the committee should clearly be empowered to furnish reports from time to time.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– As clause 12 is drafted I believe that the committee’ could present more than one report.

Senator Gibson:

– “ A “ report does not mean more than one.

Senator McKENNA:

– One can visualize that a report may be brought in which the Senate would not be prepared to adopt, and would invite the committee to reconsider its recommendations. That would necessarily involve the making of more than one report. It may be that the Standing Orders of the Senate may permit a body of this kind to make more than one report; but a proper construction of the clause is that the committee is to present a report that is acceptable to the Senate, and that would permit of more than one report being made. As the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) has said, this. matter is experimental. Power is reserved in a later clause to enable regulations to be made to pick up any loose ends. The broad principles are merely set out in the body of the bill whilst the details will be prescribed by regulation. The Senate is protected in that the broad general principles which determine the basis upon which the proceedings in the two Houses shall be broadcast respectively, and the periods during which the broadcasts will take place, are to be determined by the committee, but’ the committee’s report will come back to the Senate, and will not take effect until the Senate has approved it. That is a complete protection. The committee may deal with the whole subject matter of the allocation of time on the air between the two Houses, but it, also has the power to leave matters of detail such as the exact hours when the broadcasts shall begin and end on a particular day to another body which is a sub-committee of itself. Sub-clause 2 merely enables general principles to be applied in contingencies that cannot be foreseen now and accordingly cannot be provided for.

Senator Collett:

– The first report ‘ would be confined to first principles.

Sena tor McKENN A.- Yes. The function to be discharged in the presentation of the report is not to allocate times but to lay down the principles that the committee itself will be bound to follow once the Senate has adopted the report. Other minor questions will arise. For instance, one House might be called to meet at 2 p.m. instead of the usual hour, and the initial proceedings might be of no interest to the public. In such a case the subcommittee would hold an emergency meeting, and might decide that, the broadcast on that particular day should not commence “until 2.30 p.m. Again, plans may have been made to broadcast the Senate proceedings from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on a particular day, but, unexpectedly, the Senate might rise at an earlier hour. The sub-committee would then meet and decide perhaps that the broadcast should be switched to the House of Representatives. That is the type of function that it is intended that the sub-committee should exercise.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13- (1.) The -Committee may delegate to a Sub-Committee of the Committee, consisting of two Senators and three members of the House of Representatives, the power to determine days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of either House of the Parliament shall he broadcast, and any determination of the Sub-Committee shall, for the purposes of this Act. he deemed to be a determination of the Committee.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the -word three” be left out with a view to insert in’ lieu thereof the word “two”.

This amendment is in conformity with the alteration made in the constitution of the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14-

No action or proceed ing, civil or criminal, shall lie against a.uy person tor broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I move -

That, at the end of the clause, the following proviso be added: - *”” Provided that this section s’hall not apply to any rebroadcast of any such proceedings bv any broadcasting station.”

I emphasized the need for this amendment in my second-reading speech. “Whilst I agree that the’ original broadcast should be .protected in respect of civil or criminal proceedings because it is being made at the direction of a committee representing both Houses of the Parliament, I believe that any subsequent broad east should not ha ve this protection. A. rebroadcast .might be raa,de with malice aforethought, and with the “object of damaging the reputation of a particular party or individual. The Australian Broadcasting Act provides that broadcasts may not be repeated without the con-sent of the original broadcaster and of the Minister, but it is not hard to imagine circumstances in which the Minister’s approval might be given. In view of this danger I submit that the Government should accept the amendment.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I find it difficult to follow Senator Leckie’s reasoning. If , a broadcast is made in the first instance, and is heard by the listening public, and then some individuals, for reasons best known to themselves, wish to repeat the broadcast, I see no reason why that’ should not be done.

Senator J B Hayes:

– - They might not repeat all of it.

Senator CAMERON:

– That is so, but it would not be unusual to hear statements by members of this legislature torn from their context, and so twisted as to make their meaning entirely different from what was intended by the speaker. I do not think that it is possible to eliminate entirely all such risks simply by amending the clause in the manner suggested by Senator Leckie. For example, the Australian Broadcasting Commission may broadcast the Prime Minister’s budget speech, and some persons may wish to repeat portion of it. I fail to see what is to be gained by preventing that being done. After all, we must rely upon the common sense of the people and expect them to be reasonable and fair. The misrepresentation of speakers is quite a common practice, and one which is not confined to individuals outside Parliament. I have known members of Parliament to be quite good at it”. I would have no objection even to Senator Leckie tearing a sentence uttered by me from its context, and so twisting it as to give it a meaning quite different from that which I intended, provided, of course, that, I had the right to reply.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- This is a most important amendment of the bill as it stands. A defamatory statement might be made regarding a member of Parliament, and just prior to an election, it might be repeated by a broadcasting station without, fear of criminal or civil proceedings. It is that contingency that Senator Leckie seeks to meet. It is only fair that a limitation should be placed upon the use of parliamentary broadcasts by radio- stations. Once a debate has been broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the country, there should not be any need for any station to repeat it, or portion of it. It should be copyright. If some restriction is not imposed, broadcast items may be taken from their context, and their meaning altered with the object of injuring, perhaps, some one seeking , election to the Parliament.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– As an illustration of my argument, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies) recently made some remarks concerning the powers of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Does Senator Gibson suggest that I should not be covered by parliamentary privilege if I wished to quote-part of that speech?

Senator Gibson:

– Not for broadcasting purposes.

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes, even for broadcasting. Suppose for instance I were’ invited to broadcast over station 3KZ, Melbourne, in connexion withthe Government’s referendum proposals. Should I not be entitled to quote portionof the- speech on our arbitration systemmade by the Leader of the Opposition in i he House of Representatives, with the object of countering it with my own arguments?-

Senator Gibson:

– Not if it were slanderous.

Senator CAMERON:

– That depends upon the definition of a slander. Of course, if I used a blasphemous expression 0 would be breaking the. la-w, and could be dealt with.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- The Postmaster - General (Senator Cameron) has put up a very bad case. He has said that if in the course- of a broadcast speech, he repeated a slander uttered in a parliamentary broadcast, the broadcasting station concerned would not be liable to civil or criminal proceedings, although he would. The object of the amendment is to make clear (hat the broadcasting station would be in the same position as the Postmaster-General in that case. Trie case cited by the PostmasterGeneral is based on false premises.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– As I understand it, the intention of Senator Leckie’s amendment is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should not be permitted to record and repeat parliamentary broadcasts. That must be the honorable senator’s intention because the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is to be carried out solely by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. 1 do not know of any reason why the Australian Broadcasting Commission would wish to record the broadcasts from Parliament. If the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) wished to quote something that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Repre sentatives (Mr-. Menzies) had said, I. would expect him to quote it from Hansard which is the only permanent record of parliamentary debates. The Australian Broadcasting- Commission is not likely to- go to the expense of providing material and equipment to. record all’ of the proceedings and of placing those records in a library. If any member of the Parliament should1 want to quote what some other member has said, he may refer to Hansard. The amendment cannot, refer to commercial stations, because they are not provided for in the bill. I was astounded to hear some of the suggestions made by honorable senators opposite. Surely the Australian Broadcasting Commission will not permit some irresponsible person to make records of the broadcasts and to rebroadcast them. That is what Senator Leckie’s proposed. amendment contemplates. The amendment, if it does apply to commercial stations, would riot be consistent with the bill, because there is nothing in the measure as it stands relating to commercial stations.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- There seems to be a misunderstanding. My proposed amendment does not envisage the prohibition of rebroadcasts by national stations or commercial stations. It simply provides that any station, rebroadcasting a record of the debates’ shall not have the protection of privilege. Anybody wishing to rebroadcast portions of debates would be able to do. so if they cared to take the risk of legal proceedings. The amendment, if agreed to, would not prohibit. the making of rebroadcasts. My purpose is to prevent unscrupulous persons from recording broadcasts from the national stations and rebroadcasting such portions as suited their particular brand of politics. I cannot understand why the Minister fails to see that my proposal is perfectly innocuous for anybody who does the decent thing. It is designed to enable any aggrieved party to take proceedings in the courts to clear his name and character if somebody does not do the decent thing and injures him in making a rebroadcast. As the bill stands, a person could rebroadcast any portion of the debates, containing scandalous remarks perhaps, without obligation to broadcast the answer to those remarks. That would be completely unfair, and I consider that any person doing so should be subject to the ordinary law of libel and should not be protected. I do not want to go to the full extent of prohibiting any rebroadcasting of debates, and I consider that my proposal offers the easiest way of dealing with the matter. I do not know why the Minister should not consent to protect an innocent person from injury. I ask him to examine the amendment again.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I agree with Senator Amour that there is no reference in this bill to commercial stations.

Senator Gibson:

– That is hardly in keeping with the Minister’s statement.

Senator McKENNA:

– I said it was contemplated that the provisions of the bill shouldbe left wide enough to enable commercial stations to come into the broadcast network, if this were considered desirable, in order to increase the coverage of radio listeners. Clause 4 imposes an obligation on the commission to broadcast debates over seven stations, one in each State and an extra one at Newcastle, and it provides also that the broadcasts shall be extended through such other national stations, including shortwave national stations, as may be prescribed. In short, the Australian Broadcasting Commission can be compelled to broadcast over all national stations, short-wave and otherwise. An examination of clauses 14 and 15 will show that the protection provided is deliberately not confined to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Clause 14 states -

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

That includes not only the commission and its officers but also commercial stations which, with the consent of the commission and of the Minister, join in the broadcast. Commercial stations would have to apply for permission to join in the broadcast under section 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act, and obviously permission would be given only to broadcast the same portion of the debates as would be broadcast by the national stations. It is certain that the commission and the Minister would not conspire to grant permission to a commercial station to pick out one “highlight” of a whole day’s debate and allow it to broadcast that portion only. A station could not, without breaking the law, broadcast any of those proceedings without the consent of the commission and of the Minister. It is desirable to extend the coverage of these broadcasts as widely as possible. I believe all honorable senators will agree that they should reach as many people as possible. If the broadcast, transmitted from the national stations were simultaneously transmitted by commercial stations, I consider that the commercial stations would be entitled to the same degree of protection as is extended to the commission. The amendment suggested by Senator Leckie would only restrict the broadcast coverage that otherwise might be available to the people. Forthat reason I am not in favour of it.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Clause 14 is not quite consistent with what the Minister has just said. It states -

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

Would it not improve the clause if it. were amended to refer to “ any authorized person” instead of “any person”? By inserting the word “ authorized “, the meaning of the clause would be made perfectly clear and it would be consistent with what the Minister has said. We should not create a situation in which some unauthorized person who makes rebroadcasts will be protected.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (SenatorLECKIE’S amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator B. Courtice.)

AYES: 10

NOES: 16

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The Australian Broadcasting Commision is authorized by clause 4 to broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament but in the clause now under consideration no reference is made to clause 4. The clause merely states that no action or proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against “ any person “ for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of the Parliament. “Any person” must include the Australian Broadcasting Commission. So we should amend the clause to provide that no action shall lie against “ the Australian Broadcasting Commission or other authorized persons”.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I . prefer to leave the clause as it is. We have had no experience of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings, and in my judgment the clause- meets the position for the time being. If in the light of experience we find that some maliciously minded person has abused this privilege, appropriate action can then be taken.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– In order to’ test the opinion of the committee, I move -

That, after the word “ any “, first occuring, the word “ authorized “ bo inserted.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I do not support the proposed amendment. I invite the honorable senator to say what he means when he uses the word “ authorized “. It is necessary to ask “ authorized by whom or by what particular act?” The PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) has been too modest to advert to the fact that he will play a particular part in the publication throughout Australia of the proceedings in this Parliament and is responsible for many technicians and for many landlines. Hp himself, his officers and the Commonwealth Government are included in the word “ person “. The proposed amendment would not make for the protection of the Postmaster-General, hi? officers and the Commonwealth Government. It would not cover the vast field which needs to be protected against the possibility of action for slander.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The Postmaster - General (Senator Cameron) reminds us that the proposed broadcasts will bc experimental. Of course, we do not know whether the privilege will be abused, but the Opposition ‘desires to prevent abuse. The Minister suggests that after there ha? been a grave abuse, we should lock the stable door although the horse will have already escaped. The Postmaster-General, as the ministerial head of broadcasting, is not likely to be involved. The committee which considered this matter laid down a scheme by which the whole of the proceedings of the Parliament should be broadcast, but this clause provides for the protection of any person for broadcasting any portion of the proceedings of either House of -the Parliament. I desire to prevent any portion of the parliamentary debates being selected and published which would be detrimental to individuals or to political parties. The Minister should consider whether it would not be wise to lock the stable door before the horse ‘has escaped.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

Senator Leckie has assumed that certain action may or will be taken. He bases his whole argument on a mere assumption. Everything takes place in accordance with the law of cause and effect, and we are now endeavouring to set out a system of procedure for the purpose of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings. Not one of us is in a position to say precisely what the reactions of the people will be. I have written a number of articles, and I have used portions of a speech from Ha.nsa,rd. I have drawn my own conclusions according to what I consider I was justified in doing. I may not have done justice to the author of the speech, or I may even have presented what he said in a better’ light than he did ; but in any case I should be privileged to do that, and I have done it on numerous occasions. I see no difference between the position of a writer and that of a person who broadcasts por- tion of a speech that has been made. If the principle which is implicit in this clause is abused, it will then be time for the Parliament to act, but it is not justified in acting on a mere assumption.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The Postmaster - General (Senator Cameron) has told us that he has often used unfair methods by taking from Hansard portions of speeches which suited his particular arguments. He has probably said that they were extracted from Hansard, but how much more dangerous would it be, in a rebroadcast, to have the voice of the speaker heard over the air by many thousands of people? Comparatively few people read Hansard, and they might say, “ That is only Senator Cameron’s version “ ; but if a speaker’s voice is heard over the air he cannot deny the words that he has used. Is it not intended that the name of the speaker shall be broadcast? When an honorable senator rises to speak his name is announced by the President, and that will go over the air. The listeners will hear the voice of the President calling on the honorable senator to speak, and they will probably recognize his voice. If the broadcaster publishes only the particular part of a speech which suits his argument it will be hard to controvert it. In effect, the Postmaster-General says, “ We must wait till a man is murdered before we impose a penalty for the crime “. We know that every now and again somebody is murdered.

Senator Collings:

– There must be a corpse before a conviction for murder can be obtained.

Senator LECKIE:

– Not always. In this instance we have to provide against the murder of a character. I see great danger in this clause, and I urge honorable senators to protect individuals or sections of the people from harm before harm is done.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Section 90 of Australian Broadcasting Act inapplicable).

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- This is an appropriate place in which to refer to sections 92 and 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act. The latter section provides -

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

That means that should a Minister, from his place in the Parliament, make a statement which he then hands to representatives of the press, no newspaper will be entitled to publish it. The same would, of course, apply to the remarks of any other member of the Parliament. Is it intended to alter that provision in any way in view of the proposal to broadcast parliamentary debates? As things now stand, once a statement or speech has been broadcast no one may publish any portion of it.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I took a good deal of notice of Senator Gibson’s remarks on this subject, and now Senator Leckie also has referred to it. I have consulted my colleagues regarding this matter, and it is thought that it would be stretching a point too far to suggest that because of section 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act a newspaper would not be permitted to publish reports of debates in the Parliament after they had been broadcast. Actually, newspapers would publish matter supplied by their representatives here, and so the publication of reports of parliamentary debates would not be regarded as the publication of matter which had been broadcast. If that view be accepted, there would be no contravention of. section 93. However, as it may be contended that section 93 does apply in the manner suggested, it seems desirable that the situation should be made clear. It is thought, however, that that could be done best by an amendment of section 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act. and action along those lines will !>< taken at an early date. I believe that i here is considerable merit in the eoni en ti on of Senators Gibson and Leckie.

Senator Leckie:

– Will the Minister also give consideration to section 92 of [ he Australian Broadcasting Act?

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes, although the effect of this legislation on that section also has been considered. In view nf the assurance which I have given, I a.-‘k the committee to pass the clause.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- This is an extremely important matter. I Jo not know the views of the Minister for Health (Senator M.cKenna) regarding i he point raised, but I believe that the purpose of section 98 of the Australian Broadcasting Act was to safeguard the revenue from telegraphic and telephonic communications. Some .such provision had to be inserted in the legislation to prevent newspapers from publishing statements heard over the wireless broadcasting service. Unless some action be taken along the lines that Senate1 Leckie and I have suggested, the Canberra Times for instance would not be free to publish any report of the proceedings of this Parliament. It is not sufficient to say that section 93 of the Australian Broadcasting Act will be amended. Something should be clone immediately to safeguard the press, or difficulties will arise.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Regulations).

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- Before we pass this clause we should have a reply from the Minister to the statement made by Senator Nash. Under this clause regulations will be drawn up to govern the committee to be constituted under clause 5. I should like to know -what will happen during the taking of a division which, in the House of Representatives, takes about seven minutes. Will there be n commentator who will occupy the time with a lot of patter? Will the committee have power to say how the time occupied by the taking of the division will bc utilized ? I do not think so. I have known as many as 40 divisions being taken dining a sitting. Should that happen again there would be a good many gaps for the commentator to fill in. I do not know what Senator Nash had in mind, but I take it that this matter arose at. a meeting of the Broadcasting Committee. A statement by the Minister would be appreciated by honorable senators.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– .The joint committee which is to be set up will consist of men who are familiar with parliamentary procedure. Their knowledge and experience should enable the committee to meet the situation to which Senator Gibson has referred. All matters of detail will have to be worked out by it. I do not think that a committee of experienced men such as Senator Gibson “would have any great difficulty in recommending a satisfactory working arrangement.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1641

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to-

That the Senate, -at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.

page 1641

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Legation at Washington - Braille Mutual Progress Society.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn. ‘

Senator FINLAY:
South Australia

– I bring to the notice of the Senate the conditions under which persons employed in the Australian legation at. Washington, have to work. Recently, it was my sad privilege to be a pall-bearer at a. service held at Washington in connexion with the death of Senator Keane. While at Washington I was shown over the accommodation provided for the Australian legation. I do not blame either the present. Government or any previous cover n ment for the conditions which exist there, because during the war little could be done to improve the accommodation ; but now that the war is over the Government should take steps to ensure that its representative in the United States of America and his staff shall be housed as comfortably as are the officers of other legations at Washington.. Australia’s Ambassador to the United States of America will be obliged to live in a very old two-story building. He will be able to occupy as a dwelling only a portion of it, because the rest of the buildingis utilized as the offices of the Australian legation. There is no lift in the building, and most of the staff are situated in small upstairs rooms; nearly all the members of the typing staff are housed in attics. In order to reach their offices they have to climb a narrow stairway; it is so narrow that I had difficulty in mounting it. In the summer months the climate of Washington is humid; I understand that conditions are not unlike tropical conditions. No Australian would be proud to know that in order to reach the Naval Department of the Australian Legation at Washington it is necessary to pass through an old garage and up a narrow flight of stairs to a small room on the top floor of a building. Those are the conditions under which the whole of our staff are working to-day. I understand that the Government, has acquired a beautiful block of land in front of the present legation for the purpose of providing additional accommodation in a new building for its staff at Washington. I make these representations in the hope of expediting the construction of a new building. Australia has played a sufficiently prominent part in world affairs to warrant the housing of our representatives at Washington under conditions as good as those enjoyed by the representatives of any other country in the United States of America; and I should imagine that no Australian would be content until that objective is achieved. In view of the fact that the present accommodation at the legation is so cramped, I urge the responsible Minister to see that everything possible is done to expedite the erection of a new building. Nothing can be done with the existing building. This would have to be pulled down and re-erected, and it would be far more economical for the Government to commence as soon as possible the erection of a new building. We cannot be proud of the housing of our Ambassador at Washington. He resides, and receives guests, in only a portion of the building in which the staff is accommodated. That does not reflect very great credit upon our Ambassador and other Australian representatives in the United States of America. I urge the Leader of the Senate to bring this matter to the notice of the responsible Minister with a view to alleviating the position of the staff of the Australian legation at Washington as soon as possible.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I bring to the notice of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Ashley) the following letter which I have received from Mr. W. F. Truscott, president of the Braille Mutual Progress Society, Hoba rt : -

Dear sir,

The committee of the above-named society has directed me to write you requesting your support and advocacy of the abolition of the means test’ insofar as it penalizes blind pensioners.

After much careful investigation, it is amply evident tous that the said means test adversely effects the welfare of blind persons in three main directions.

Owing to the severe restrictions on saving, thrift is discouraged, and it becomes well-nigh impossible (except by unlawful methods) for blind people to accumulate sufficient means for their personal betterment in preparation for marriage.

The property qualifications impose undue hardship on the owners of unremunerative possessions, which, if disposed of, become a further charge against the pension, i.e., one case among many is that of a married man owning a building block upon which he is unable to erect a home at present, losing a portion of his pension through ownership of same, while at the same time paying rent for a resi dence elsewhere,

Any blind person, who, through talent or effort succeeds in earning a little more than the basic wage has his pension proportionately reduced, while he is still obliged to pay the. unduly heavy income tax. This condition tends to encourage people to suppress their efforts and neglect the exploitation of their talents.

Blind persons are not invalids, but blindness is a handicap which may be to a great extent overcome if the opportunity is given. We, therefore, feel that the pension should be paid to all blind persons by way of compensation for this handicap, andshould not be rendered loss useful by the imposition of a means test.

We maintain that any additional costs incurred by having to pay out a little more in pensions wouldbe largely offset by greatly reduced administrative costs, thus enabling a larger proportion’ of the money to be directly paidto those whom it is intended to benefit.

Trusting we shall have your active support in our efforts to see justice done, and thanking you in anticipation,

I should be very glad if the Leader of the Senate would examine these representations in conjunction with the appropriate Minister with a view to seeing whether some redress can be effected in this matter.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

in reply -I shall bring to the notice of the appropriate Ministers the matters raised by SenatorFinlay and Senator Sampson.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1643

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service ActAppointments - Department -

External Affairs- W. D. Forsyth, A. H. Tange.

Interior- C. W. A. Warde.

National Security Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (167)

Wine Grapes Charges Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules1946, No. 88.

Senate adjourned at 9.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 June 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19460620_senate_17_187/>.