Senate
31 May 1956

22nd Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1121

QUESTION

YASS WATER SUPPLY

Senator MAHER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he is aware that the Yass Municipal Council is reported to have secretly introduced fluorides into the town water supply. Is the Minister aware that any other municipality or water authority is secretly adding fluorides to public water supplies? Will he undertake to bring to the notice of the State health authorities the need to forbid water authorities to put poisonous fluorides in public water supplies without full public debate on the matter or the taking of a referendum on it of the people who must use such, water?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– No doubt the honorable senator will remember that Senator Robertson asked a somewhat similar question yesterday and that I promised F would obtain some information for her. So far as I can see, this is purely a matter for the State health authorities. I do not think that the Commonwealth Minister for Health has any jurisdiction at all over a State Minister for Health in respect of action that should be taken in a case of the kind mentioned. However, T shall provide the honorable senator with a copy of the report which I am obtaining for Senator Robertson.

page 1121

QUESTION

TRADE WITH CHINA

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade whether it is true that the Prime Minister has warned us of economic difficulties ahead for Australia. If so, are not those difficulties mainly due to relatively diminishing markets? Has the Minister noted certain articles in newspapers, which support the Government, advocating trade with China? Has the G.overn.ment considered the value of this potential market? Is there any possibility of the Government’s permitting trade with

China and thus opening up a way to overcome our economic difficulties as portrayed by the Prime Minister?

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

– As to the reason for our present economic difficulties, I refer the honorable senator to the White Paper that was recently tabled in the House of Representatives and which sets out the position in a more adequate form than I could pretend to set it out. On the question of trade with China, 3 thought I made the position clear in a recent debate in the House on one of the bills then under discussion, when I said that trade with any country was a matter for the individual traders within Australia and those in the overseas country. There is no embargo upon trade with red China or elsewhere, and no restriction other than that this Government adheres to the policy of the countries which are joined together in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of refraining from exporting strategic materials which may be used against them. I gave figures regarding the volume of trade transactions. Unfortunately, I have not been able to keep the figures in mind, but the general principle is clear. Australia is eager for trade, and the Government has not altered the policy that has been applied for some years past. It is for those engaged in trading transactions to open further avenues wherever they can.

page 1121

QUESTION

REPATRIATION OE IMMIGRANTS

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether he has seen a report in the Melbourne press that red agents are threatening Czechoslovakians and immigrants of other nationalities from iron curtain countries in an effort to force them to return to their native lands. Some of the persons threatened are reported to be naturalized Australians who have married Australians. Can the Government take action immediately through the security police to df-a! with these trouble-makers, and either put them in such a position that they can do no harm, or, if necessary, deport them at. once?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen reports in the press in relation to this matter, and they indicate that the special branches of the State police have it in hand. Apparently, they have been trying to get information from people who can give it concerning some of the persons involved. I will bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Immigration, and if he can add anything to what I have said I will pass it on to the honorable senator.

page 1122

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping. About ten days ago, I directed the Minister’s attention to the accumulation of potatoes at ports on the north-western coast of Tasmania, and he was good enough to provide shipping to lift that surplus. However, as there are further supplies at those ports, I ask whether the Minister has any information about ships which might possibly come to Tasmania within the next week or two to lift the potatoes.

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

– About an hour ago, I received* information from the traffic committee which indicates that six or seven ships will be lifting potatoes from the north-west ports of Tasmania within the next two weeks. On the 1st June, Delungra, ex Burnie, will leave for Melbourne with timber and potatoes. During the first week in June, Marnoo will take 15,000 to 20,000 sacks for Sydney. Nongah, ex Stanley, will leave for Melbourne and Kini will leave with 5.000 sacks for Newcastle. On the 5th June, Enfield will leave Ulverstone for Newcastle with 7,000 sacks; on the 16th, Kootara will take from 15,000 to 20.000 sacks from Devonport to Sydney, if that quantity is available; and on the 15th June, Canberra will take 10,000 sacks, or whatever number of sacks is available, from north-west ports for brisbane.

page 1122

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services say whether it is a fact that an invalid pensioner receives a pension of £4 a week and is not allowed to augment that sum by individual earning! Is it also a fact that the wife of an invalid pensioner receives only £1 15s. a week for herself and is precluded from earning more because of the duties involved in looking after her sick husband? Has the attention of the Minister been directed to the anomaly that an invalid pensioner receiving £4 a week, whose wife receives £1 15s. a week and whose family consists of three children aged fourteen, years, eleven years and nine years, has a. total income for the five members of the family of £7 lis. 9d. a week, whilst the pension for an aged couple is £8 a week?’ In the preparation of the forthcoming, budget, will the Minister consider this anomaly and have it corrected?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– All that I can say in reply to the honorable senator’s question is that on the occasion of the preparation of the forthcoming budget, the Government’s policy in relation to social services benefits will be examined, as is done in respect of each budget that is presented.

page 1122

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General been directed to press statements regarding telephone rentals and the probability of an increase of 25 per cent, in such rentals in the near future? If those reports are true, has the Minister any comment to make about them ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I have not seen the reports about which the honorable senator has spoken, and I’ certainly have no comment to make about something that I have not seen. I assure the honorablesenator that if there is to be an increase we shall be notified in due course by thePostmasterGeneral

page 1122

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address » question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as chairman-elect of the Parliamentary committee on the Constitution. Will he include the question of uniform taxation, and its influence on the federal’ system, in the terms of reference of the committee ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– It would not be wy function as the chairman of this committee to determine the actual subjects that we shall discuss. My own anticipation is that we shall undertake a review of the whole constitutional structure and endeavour to look around for things of some importance in constitutional matters upon which we may be able to arrive at some agreement for improvement. Whether the taxation power of the Commonwealth is one of those matters will be a matter for the committee to decide. Of course, uniform taxation itself is not a constitutional matter, except in the sense that it has been upheld by the High Court as a proper exercise by the Commonwealth of the unlimited power, over taxation which is conferred upon the Commonwealth by the Constitution. I should have thought that a committee of this Parliament, at any rate, would .find some difficulty in placing limitations upon that power. The question of whether the power should be exercised, or should continue to be exercised in the way in which it is exercised, is not a constitutional question at all, but a policy matter.

[RON AND STEEL.

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for National Development inform me whether approaches have been made to him by overseas interests regarding the establishment of a steel industry in Western Australia? Is it a fact that Western. Australia has the necessary deposits of iron ore, manganese, chromite and coal, which are essential for the establishment of such an. industry? Is it a fact that chromite, iron ore and manganese are at present supplied to the eastern States from the Western Australian deposits?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– No approaches have been made to me from overseas interests for the establishment of a steel industry in Western Australia. I agree with the honorable senator’s contention that natural resources are available in Western Australia, with a reservation concerning coking coal. There are deposits of, chromite and manganese, but mot of coking coal. However, the posi tion appears to be changing, in that recent developments, or recent trends, indicate the possibility of coking Western Australian coal, which it was previously not considered practicable to do, in order to provide a necessary ingredient for the steel industry. That is a technical process that I am not able to explain, but it will be very interesting if events show that the types of coal available in Western Australia can, in due course, be used for making steel.

page 1123

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator BROWN:

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate of the amounts charged foi’ the rental of telephones in New Zealand, Great Britain and the United States of America?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– Offhand, I am unable to answer the honorable senator’s question. However, I shall obtain the information from the Postmaster-General, and let the honorable senator have it as soon as possible.

page 1123

QUESTION

STERLING LOANS

Senator ROBERTSON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Treasurer seen a statement by the executive officer of the Victorian Employers Federation Economic “Division, reported in the West Australian of the 21st May, in which it is stated that British investors have withdrawn more than £100,000,000 sterling from Australia since 1939?
  2. Will the Treasurer make a statement giving a true picture of British investment in, and withdrawal from, Australia at the present time?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Yes.
  2. No statistics are available as to the total amount of British investment in Australia. Since 1047-48, however, estimates have been made as to the net annual movement in overseas investment in companies in Australia. These estimates indicate that between 1947-48 and 1053-54, United Kingdom investors increased their investments in com’ panics in Australia by the net amount of £A.2(iO,000,000.

page 1124

QUESTION

PURCHASE OP CONVAIR AIRCRAFT

Senator HENTY:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government is purchasing two Convair aircraft from America at a cost of 2,000,000 dollars for the use of V.I.P.’s in Australia?
  2. If so, and in view of the shortage of dollar exchange, will the Minister explain why American aircraft are to be purchased in preference to British aircraft? ;i. Will the .Minister make a full statement to the Senate as to the necessity for the purchase of these aircraft?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Air has furnished the following replies : -

  1. Yes. The cost of the aircraft, approximately 760,000 dollars each, is the same as paid (under a very favorable contract) by the United States Government and substantially below realizable value on the open market.
  2. Consideration was given to the selection nf aircraft from both the United Kingdom and United States. A suitable type of aircraft from the United Kingdom could not have been delivered for at least two years from the time the inquiry was made. The most suitable type from United States sources, the Convair 440, was offered for immediate delivery by the release of two from the production run of this type, which were on allocation to the United States Air Force for transport of V.I.P.’s.
  3. The V.I.P. Transport Flight of the RoyaAustralian Air Force Transport Wing was established for the air transport of the Governor-General, senior Cabinet Ministers on special goverment business and V.I.P.’s, such as visiting Heads of State. This is in keeping with the practice of most other nations of the world. Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke nf Edinburgh were carried by this flight when in Australia. The main use of these aircraft is on Rights over routes which arc not suitably served by civil airlines or on which their schedules are inappropriate. Until this year, the flight was equipped with Douglas C47 Dakota aircraft, which have been in service with the Royal Australian Air Force for fifteen years : this type is obsolescent for such work, partciularly as it is unpressurized, has a very limited range and is relatively slow. These factors led to the decision last year to replace the Dakotas with a more modern passenger aircraft type as soon as possible. The Convair 440’3 as delivered are equipped with seats, desks, &c, and this configuration could be used as “ flying schoolrooms “ or executive transports. The design, however, makes it possible to convert the aircraft for a variety of uses. For example, it may be equipped as a Hying hospital to carry 34 stretcher ewe» with attendants; it may be used to transport up to GO troops, for the conveyance of air freight, and a variety of other service duties. The operational capabilities of the Convair 440 as compared with those of the Dakota are ample justification for their selection.

page 1124

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN-MANUFACTURED CARS

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

– On the 22nd May, Senator Arnold asked the following question :-

Will the Minister make available to the Senate a statement showing what protection is available to companies producing cars made wholly in Australia against those who incur the penalty of a tariff upon a wholly imported car?

The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

Duty is not payable on a complete motor car as such, but on the various components, as specified in the Customs Tariff, which go to make up a car. For this reason it is not possible to state exactly the duty payable on an imported car. However, a somewhat comparable car to the Holden, of United Kingdom origin, would pay approximately £98 customs duty. A somewhat comparable car originating in a country to which the most-favoured-nation tariff rates apply, would pay about £200 customs duty. As the question relates to protection the amount of sales tax payable is not included in these figures. If the honorable senator would like to have a detailed list of the duties applicable to the various components I shall be pleased to make a schedule available.

page 1124

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL

Bill presented by Senator McCallum, and read a first time.

page 1124

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1956

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to establish an Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to operate certain Shipping Services, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to set up a commission to take over the operation of the Commonwealth-owned ships. Until now, these ships have been operated under the authority of the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations. This is obviously undesirable, and it is necessary that their mode of operation be placed on a more satisfactory and permanent basis.

The Government has given long and careful consideration to the future of the Commonwealth-owned vessels. In these considerations, the Government has always had in mind the primary consideration that whoever operates them, the ships should be so used that they would be of the greatest assistance possible in providing adequate and efficient shipping services on the Australian coast. It must be admitted that since the end of the war, shipping services on the coast have not been all that might have been desired.

I do not propose to embark on a detailed discussion of why this has been so, but as I see it one of the principal factors has been the high capital cost of replacing the tonnage lost during the war and tonnage which has become obsolete since. Coupled with the problem of finding the heavy capital demands for replacement tonnage is the very steep increase in the cost of operating ships brought about by higher wages, higher fuel costs and increased repair and” maintenance costs. It is also regrettably true that ship operators have not been assisted by the many disputes which over all the post-war years have characterized this industry.

When to these problems is added the problem of the increasing competition from land and air transport, it will be realized that shipowners have been faced with serious and difficult problems in their endeavours to maintain efficient and adequate services on the Australian coast. Within the limits of the resources available to them, the shipping companies have done what they could. Orders have been placed for new ships, and further orders are in contemplation. Oversea.ships have been chartered to supplemen Australian-owned ships. Old ships have been kept in service, in the face of heavy expenses for surveys and, in many cases, for improved crew accommodation, although from a purely commercial viewpoint, the expenditure of such, substantial sums on old vessels is hardly a payable proposition.

The Commonwealth, for its part, ba.also assisted, lt has placed substantial orders for ships both in Australian and overseas yards; it has bought several second-hand ships, and it has chartered overseas ships to assist in providing vessels in the coastal trade.

The Government’s ultimate aim is to ensure that Australia is served with an Australian-owned fleet of modern merchant, vessels of suitable types and in sufficient numbers to meet all the needs of the various trades around the Australian coast, lt intends, also, that amany as possible of these ships will be built in Australian shipyards. It is with these objectives in mind, and having regard also to the problems of the shipping industry to which I have briefly referred, that the Government has approached the question of the future of the Commonwealth-owned ships.

This Government believes in private enterprise. It has been an open secret for some years that it has been exploring the possibility of disposing of the Commonwealthowned vessels to private enterprise. It has always been made clear, however, that its first objective has been to see that the best interests of the Australian people are served. Despite thi? uninformed and irresponsible outbursts from members of the Opposition on many occasions to the effect that the Government was preparing to give away the ships, it has been quite positive in its intention that it would dispose of them only on condition that it received a fair price, that the ships were retained on the coast, that the buyers would undertake to provide adequate shipping services, and that the position of the Australian shipbuilding industry would be protected. Despite long and earnest endeavours on the part both of the Government and potential purchasers, it was not possible to reach agreement for the sale of the ships on terms which satisfied the Government on all of these points.

This Government, unlike some previous governments, is not fettered by doctrinaire considerations in its approach to such problems. Having found it was not possible to sell the ships on terms satisfactory to it, it decided that -they would be continued in operation under government ownership. At the same time, the Government recognizes the valuable part which the private shipping companies have played, and will continue to play, in providing shipping services on the coast and has, therefore, taken steps to ensure that these companies are placed in a position which will enable them to continue to play their rightful part in providing shipping services in our coastal trades. To this end, the Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with a number of shipping and stevedoring companies. The approval of Parliament to this agreement will be sought in a separate bill, and I do not, therefore, propose to do more than mention it at this juncture.

As I indicated earlier, the purpose of the present bill is to set up a commission to operate the Commonwealth ships. The commission will consist of five members, one of whom will be chairman and another vice-chairman. The normal term of appointment of commissioners will be five years, but the initial appointments are for varying periods so that one commissioner will retire each year. In this way, continuity of administration will be preserved. Commissioners will be elig bie for re-appointment. They will be appointed by the Governor-General, and the usual provisions are made for vacation of office of commissioners. However, I would invite the attention of the Senate to the provision for the vacation of office of a commissioner who becomes interested in a contract entered into by the commission.

The Government has followed the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts in its report on the affairs of the Aluminium Production Commission. The committee recommended that a provision on the lines of that contained in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 should be included ia Commonwealth acts establishing statutory corporations. Under this provision, a commisisoner who has an interest in a contract with the commission is not thereby disqualified from membership, but is placed under an obligation to disclose his interest at a meeting of the commission, and to refrain from voting in connexion with the contract. There is one departure from the United Kingdom precedent in that a commissioner whose only interest in a contract arises from the fact that he is the holder of shares in common with other members in an incorporated company of not less than 25 members, is not obliged to disclose his interest. It was felt to be desirable to make this exception, because commissioners may hold shares in a number of public companies and, as ordinary shareholders, would not always be aware of the fact that the company was interested in a contract with the commission.

The commission is given broad powers to operate vessels in the coastal and overseas trades and in trades incidental thereto but not in intrastate trades as the terms of the Constitution do not permit it to be given this power. It is not intended that the vessels of the commission will engage in overseas voyaging, except as special circumstancesdemand. However, in the past, Commonwealth ships have on occasions engaged in overseas voyages for special reasons,, and as it is possible that they may be required to do so in future, the power to engage in overseas trades has been included.. In addition to its broad function of operating shipping services, the commission is given power to do all those things which are necessary in connexion with the carrying out of its functions. A number of specific powers are also enumerated, including the power to buy, sell or charter ships, to buy or lease land or equipment, to arrange for the training of apprentices.

It has been the objective of the Government in drafting this bill to place the commission as far as possible in the same position as a private operator of ships. The commission, therefore, has been given a very considerable degree of autonomy and the powers of the Minister are, generally speaking, limited to a power of approval on a relatively few matters of policy. The Minister also has power to approve of freight rates charged by the commission; but it should be noted that the power is one of approval or disapproval only, and he has no power to initiate changes in the freights charged by the commission.

The Minister has one direct power, to which I should like to refer. Where he considers it is necessary to meet the needs of a particular area and is in the public interest, the Minister may direct the commission to establish a shipping service to meet those particular needs. Where a service is established at the direction of the Minister and results in a loss and the commission’s operations for the year also result in a loss, then the commission is entitled to be reimbursed for the loss on the service or the loss on the year’s operations, whichever is the lesser. This power will enable the Minister to ensure that where they are necessary, developmental trades will be undertaken by the commission to areas where the commission would not normally provide services because they would not be payable from a commercial point of view. If the commission is operating on a profitable basis overall, it will be expected to absorb any losses on suchtrades, but if its operations should not be profitable, then it may be reimbursed and the maintenance of developmental services will thus not be an unduly onerous burden on the finances of the commission. The Government expects the commission to operate on a proper commercial basis and it’ has, therefore, included a provision in the bill which obliges the commission to pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure and to pay a reasonable return on its capital. So far as is consistent with this obligation, the commission is obliged to make its services available at the lowest possible rates.

The Minister is required to have regard to these obligations of the commission when the freights and fares of the commission are before him for approval. These provisions will ensure on the one hand that the commission conducts its affairs in a business-like way, and while providing services as cheaply as possible will endeavour, to show a reasonablereturn on the very substantial capital which the people of Australia have invested in this enterprise. On the other hand, it will ensure that neither the commission, nor any Minister, can reduce freights to an uneconomically low level to the detriment of the private shipping companies and of the finances of the Commonwealth.

The usual provisions ai-e included in the measure providing for the appointment of staff including the appointment of a general manager who will be the chief executive officer of the commission. Again, in pursuance of the Government’s policy of placing the commission in the same position as its competitors - the private-shipping companies - it has been provided that the Public Service Arbitration Act shall not be applied to the commission and employees of the commission will be subject to the normal awards and determinations under the Arbitration Act or other appropriate wage-fixing authority. On the matter of employees’ compensation, the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act applies to office and administrative staff; seamen will come under the Seamen’s Compensation Act in the Same way as all other seamen on the coast; and masters, officers and radio officers will receive compensation in terms of their awards. Other employees will be subject to the normal workers’ compensation provisions.

Turning to the finances of the commission, the bill provides that the commission shall have a definite capital, its initial capital consisting of the value of the ships and other assets it will take over from the Australian Shipping Board and the amounts which may be paid to it from the surplus funds remaining after the winding up of the affairs of the Australian Shipping Board. The commission will also take over, on completion, vessels at present under construction to the order of the Commonwealth and intended for operation by the Australian Shipping Board. The amounts which have already been paid by the Commonwealth for these ships by way of progress payments to shipbuilders will also form part of the commission’s initial capital. Provision is also made for the capital of the commission to be added to out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for this purpose should further additions to its capital be necessary. The commission will not be obligated to pay interest on its capital but will be required to make payments to the Commonwealth out of its profits each year, these payments being in effect in the nature of a dividend. Repayments of capital may be made as determined by the Minister and the Treasurer if, at any time in thu future, the finances of the commission permit this to be done.

The usual provisions are made regarding the banking of moneys, the application of profits and the audit of the accounts of the commission by thi.1 Auditor-General. The commission will be liable to pay tax under the laws of the Commonwealth, including income tax and sales tax, this provision being a further measure in line with the policy of placing die commission in the position of a competitive business undertaking. The bill contains the usual provisions for the submission of annual reports and accounts to the Minister, and the Minister is required to lay these before the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of their receipt by him.

Part 3 of the bill provides for thu winding up of the affairs of the Australian Shipping Board under whose authority Commonwealth ships have been operated to date. The proposal i? that the vessels at present in operation, as set out in the first schedule to the act, will be transferred to the commission as soon as practicable. It is not possible to transfer all the ships on a given date because when the act comes into force most of them will be engaged on voyages between ports. The intention is that on the completion of the voyage current when the act comes into force, the vessels will be transferred to the commission and, thereafter, will run to the commission’s account. Vessels under construction will be taken over by the commission on conpletion

As soon as it becomes practicable to do so, the affairs of the shipping board will then be wound up and the National

Security (Shipping Co-ordination ) Regulations will be repealed. When the affairs of the board have been wound up, the Treasurer may direct that such portion as he deems necessary of the moneys of the board then remaining will be transferred to the commission and these moneys will form part of the commission’s capital. The Australian Shipping Board has a. number of outstanding transactions, in some cases extending back to the war years, which are now in the process of adjustment but which may take some time to complete. It is possible also that after the affairs of the board have been wound up, some claim may be made against it or a claim may need to be made on behalf of the board. To meet such cases, it is provided that after the date of th? repeal of the National Security Regulations, the Commonwealth will be substituted for the board for such purposes. This procedure is considered to be preferable to keening the board in existence for an indefinite and perhaps lengthy period pending the completion of the«e transactions.

The bill also contains a number of miscellaneous provisions most of which are of a machinery nature and are normal in measures of this kind. I may. perhaps, refer to two of them. The bill provides. that the Minister may, with the concurrence of the Treasurer and on behalf of the Commonwealth, purchase ships and dispose of ships so purchased to the commission or to any other person. The purpose of this clause is to enable financial assistance to be given to the Australian shipbuilding industry. Owing to limitations imposed by the Constitution, this method of assistance to the industry has been inexistence for a number of years both by the present and previous governments. It has proved a very satisfactory system and it is proposed that it shall be continued.

In brief, the Commonwealth, in pursuance of its policy of supporting the shipbuilding industry, places orders - through the Australian Shipbuilding Board - for the building of vessels in Australian yards. On completion, the vessels are sold to the ultimate purchaser at a price less than the cost to the Government, the difference representing the amount of subsidy payable. Honorable senators will be aware of the report of the Tariff Board on the shipbuilding industry, which was tabled in Parliament not long ago, and of the Government’s decision to increase the subsidy on ships built in Australian yards to a maximum of 33 per cent. The Government hopes that, as a result of its policy in support of the shipbuilding industry, the Australian yards will be assured of adequate and regular orders. It hopes also that as a result the shipbuilders will be encouraged to improve the efficiency of the industry so that output will be increased, costs reduced, and delivery dates improved.

The bill also contains a provision restricting the transfer or mortgage of Australian ships which are under the age of 25 years. This clause has two purposes. First, it is designed to ensure that the Minister has some power to prevent the Australian coast being denuded of vessels which are still capable of performing a. useful service; and secondly, to ensure that ships built in Australian yards on which a subsidy has been paid are retained on the coast until the end of their useful life. I may add that shipowners raise no objection to this provision.

Finally, I invite the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the hill repeals the Shipping Act 1949. This measure was introduced by the Labour Government in March, 1949, but for reasons best known to that Government, was never proclaimed, and has therefor remained inoperative. It is now being removed from the statute-book.

The Government believes that the measures contained in this bill provide the means of placing the affairs of the Commonwealth line on a sound and permanent basis. The commission, which will be charged with the duty of operating the Commonwealth ships, will be given a considerable degree of autonomy subject only to the approval of the Minister on a relatively few matters of major policy. It will, to all intents and purposes, be in the same position as a nor mal business organization, and the Government trusts that under its administration the vessels of the Commonwealth line will be operated on an efficient and profitable basis and will continue to assist in providing a economical and efficient shipping service in the Australian coastal trades. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1129

AUSTEALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING AGEEEMENT BILL 1956

Motion (by SenatorPALTRIDGE) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to approve an agreement entered into by the Commonwealth with respect to Australian Coastal Shipping, and for purpose connected with that agreement.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Secondreading.

SenatorPALTRIDGE (Western Australia - Minister for Shipping and Transport) [3.21]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is complementary to the bill which has just been introduced and which provided for the setting up of a commission to operate the Commonwealthowned ships. In my second-read ing speech introducing that particular measure, I referred to the fact that one of the objectives of the Government was to protect the position of the private shipping companies and to place them in a position whereby they would beable to continue to play their duepart in the provision of efficient shipping services in the Australian coastal trade.

The Government believes that both the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and the private shipping companies have a part to play in providing shipping services and that there is ampleopportunity on the coast for both interests to operate. It is determined, however, to avoid the position arising under which the Commonwealth-owned vessels will expand unnecessarily into trades which are being efficiently served by the private shipping interests. The Government has no intention of unduly restricting the activities of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission; on the contrary, it has given the commission very - wide and general powers tu operate its vessels with a minimum of ministerial control over its activities. At the same time, it is not prepared to confer any undue advantages on thu private shipping companies. Still less is it prepared to place any of those companies in anything approaching * monopolistic position. Its objective has been, while retaining the operation of the Commonwealth line, to give the private shipping companies every opportunity to play their part in providing shipping services and to leave it to the shipping companies themselves to determine to what extent they will participate in these services.

To achieve these objectives, the Government, after long and detailed negotiations, has reached an agreement with various shipping and stevedoring companies and it is this agreement to which the approval of the Parliament is now sought. The agreement is annexed as a schedule to this bill. Under it, undertakings are’ given both by the Commonwealth and by shipping and stevedoring companies in regard to the operation of shipping services on the Australian coast. The shipowners for their part undertake that they will provide sufficient vessels of suitable types as will, with the vessels of other companies and of the commission, provide adequate efficient and economical coastal shipping services. They further undertake that they will conduct these services in an efficient and economical manner and under competitive conditions. Tle stevedoring companies have likewise undertaken to carry out stevedoring operations in an efficient and economical manner and to give fair and equitable treatment to the vessels of the commission handled by them.

The Commonwealth, for its part, ha.ii undertaken that it will not, except through the agency of the commission, operate merchant vessels in the coastal trades and that the commission will not engage in stevedoring operations, nor undertake itself the booking or handling of cargo carried on its vessels in coastal and territorial shipping trades. These services will continue to be performed, as they have been for many years past, by established private companies, except in conditions that are described later. The Commonwealth also undertakes that, except in circumstances to which I shall refer shortly, the tonnage of vessels operated by the commission will not exceed, in the aggregate, 325,000 gross tons. This tonnage is sufficient to cover all of the Commonwealth vessels now in operation, together with those under construction, with a margin to provide for foreseeable demands for additional tonnage in certain trades, and with a further margin for any contingencies which may arise in the future. This tonnage is sufficient to cover the present and immediately prospective needs of the commission, and to give it, in addition, a reasonable margin for the expansion of it? tonnage.

The agreement goes on to make adequate provision for the expansion of the commission’s authorized tonnage should it prove that the shipping companies are not, in fact, meeting in full their obligation to provide adequate and efficient services. If the ‘ Minister considers that further tonnage is necessary in the coastal trades because existing tonnage is insufficient, or because tonnage is required for expansion in any established trade, or for the purpose of servicing new routes, or because any route is not adequately served because the tonnage is obsolete, he may notify the companies, specifying the tonnage which he thinks should be acquired to meet these demands.

To digress for a moment, I should explain that the agreement provides that should there be any difference of opinion between the Minister or the commission and the companies signatory to the agreement, these differences may be resolved by reference to an independent authority, who will determine matters in dispute. Except for the purpose of determining matters related to shipbuilding, to which I shall refer in more detail later, the independent authority will be a person agreed upon between the parties. In default of agreement he will, at the option of the Minister, he a barrister or solicitor nominated by the president of the Law Council of Australia, or a chartered accountant nominated by the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. This will ensure that a person may be chosen to act as independent authority with the qualifications necessary to enable him to determine the particular point at issue. The companies then may inform the Minister whether or not they agree with his contention regarding the additional tonnage required. If they do not, the .matter will be referred to the independent authority for determination. Upon determination being made, if the companies do not, within a time specified, take steps to provide the tonnage which the independent authority has determined is necessary, the Minister may authorize the commission to acquire the tonnage, and the tonnage which the commission is empowered to operate will be increased by the amount of tonnage so acquired.

The private shipping companies, therefore, are given every opportunity to build the new tonnage which may be required for the Australian coastal trade, but if they do not do so the commission may build tonnage to the extent to which the private companies fail to do so. Thus, it is entirely in the hands of the shipping companies as to whether or not they take advantage of any opportunities offering from time to time to expand their operations. On the other hand, the position of the commission and of the Australian public is fully protected, because if the shipowners fail to play their part, then it is open to the commission to step in and meet any deficiencies.

The commission is likewise protected in. relation to the stevedoring and the booking and handling of cargo carried in its vessels. In the first place, the rates, fees, &c, which are payable for these services are to be as agreed between the commission and the company concerned, or if they cannot agree, at rates to be determined by the independent authority. The independent authority having determined a reasonable rate and the commission being unable to find any company signatory to the agreement prepared to do the work for them in any port or in any service at those rates, the commission may then either get the work done by a company outside the agreement, or it may be authorized by the Minister to do the work itself.

Furthermore, the commission is protected if it should prove that the stevedoring of the commission’s vessels, or the booking or handling of cargo, is being carried out in a manner detrimental to the commission’s interests by reason of inefficiency or because the commission’s vessels are not given fair and equitable treatment, or if the efficiency of operation of the vessels is in any way adversely affected by arrangements made for their handling by any inadequacy on the part of the company concerned. If the commission cannot arrange with any company to perform these services to its satisfaction, the matter may be referred to the independent authority. If the Minister’s contention that the vessels are not being efficiently handled is upheld by the authority, the commission again may arrange with a firm outside the agreement to do work for it, or may be authorized by the Minister to do it itself. Thus, so long as the companies continue to provide efficient services in stevedoring and booking or handling of cargo on the commission’s vessels, the arrangements which have operated satisfactorily in this regard for many years will be continued.

There are obvious advantages in continuing this arrangement. The companies have been doing this work for the Australian Shipping Board in a satisfactory manner and at reasonable rates. The commission, so long as the arrangement continues, will avoid the considerable expense and administrative difficulties which would be involved in acquiring premises and setting up the staff which would be necessary at the various ports if it had to perform these services for itself. However, it is fully protected, because if it should prove that the services are not being performed in an efficient manner, the commission may be authorized, after a determination by the independent authority, to carry out the services for itself.

The agreement also provides for the protection of the Australian shipbuilding industry. The Government has pursued an active policy in support of this industry’ and has, only recently, following a report on the industry by the Tariff Board, increased the amount of financial assistance payable in respect of vessels built in Australian yards to a maximum of 33£ per cent. It is recognized that this support, generous as it is, is not the only thing required to maintain the shipbuilding industry at an adequate and efficient level of production. The industry in this country is still comparatively new, and to enable it to develop along satisfactory lines it is necessary that the yards receive adequate and regular orders to an extent which will enable them to continue operating without interruptions and, indeed, to expand their rate of production.

It is obvious that if a yard does not receive orders regularly, so that it is unable to plan its production well ahead and ensure that all the many trades which take part in the building of a ship are occupied in due progression, there will be occasions when all of their skilled employees will not be fully employed and it may be necessary for men to be laid off. If this occurs, not only will the rate of production be affected, but also it may prove difficult for the yards to get the men back when work is resumed, and their efficiency and ability to build ships economically will be thus adversely affected.

With these factors in mind, the agreement provides that where the Minister, after receiving advice from the Australian Shipbuilding Board, is satisfied that the orders held by the Australian shipyards for the construction of new tonnage are less than is necessary to enable the industry to continue in operation at a reasonably adequate level of production, he may give notice to the shipping companies accordingly, specifying the amount of tonnage which he considers should be ordered from Australian yards. In arriving at an opinion on this matter, the Minister is quite rightly required to have regard to the cost and period of construction of ships in Australian yards. If the shipping companies do not agree, the matter may, as in the cases mentioned previously, be referred to the independent authority for determination.

For purposes of determining matters connected with shipbuilding, it is provided that the independent authority shall be the Australian Tariff Board. It is felt that this board, which has only recently completed a thorough investigation into the Australian shipbuilding industry, and which will be making further investigations from time to time, is the most appropriate body to deal with matters of this nature. The Tariff Board having made a determination, the shipping companies will have up to 6 months to take such steps as may be practicable to place orders, for the amount of tonnage determined, with Australian shipyards. If they do not do so, or order less than the tonnage determined, the Minister may authorize the commission to order tonnage to make up the deficiency. Once again, the tonnage which the commission is authorized to operate will be increased by the amount of tonnage so ordered. The Minister will thus be able to ensure at all times that Australian yards have sufficient and regular orders.

There are two further important provisions in the agreement to which I would draw the attention of the Senate. It i3 provided that the commission shall pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all expenses and to permit it to pay to the Commonwealth a reasonable return on its capital, and the Minister administering the affairs of the commission is required, in exercising his powers under the act, to have regard to the policy which the commission is required to pursue. This provision has two effects. It requires the commission to manage its affairs in. a business-lite manner and to endeavour to show reasonable profits, in the same way as any other trading organization is expected to do and, on the other hand, it prevents the commission or the Minister from charging rates of freight, which are uneconomical and which would not only react to the serious detriment of the private shipping companies, but which would also impose a burden on the Australian taxpayers in that any losses which the commission might thereby suffer would ultimately fall on their shoulders.

I stated earlier in my remarks that one of the objectives of the Government in subscribing to this agreement was to ensure that no companies were placed in a monopolistic position. To give further point to this objective, the agreement provides that it is open to any company engaged in shipping or stevedoring operations to apply to the Minister to become a party to the agreement, and the Minister is empowered to accept such applicants. It should be noted particularly that the consent of the original signatories is not necessary before the Minister accepts a firm which wishes to be joined as a party. Thus, it is open to any shipping or stevedoring company which now or in the future may wish to do so to be joined as a party and to undertake the obligations and secure the benefits resulting therefrom. It should be further noted that the commission is under no obligation to use any particular one or more of the signatory companies to carry out stevedoring, or the booking or handling of cargo on its vessels. It may use any companies signatory to the agreement and, in certain circumstances, companies outside the agreement. It may be expected that there will be some competition among the companies concerned to perform these services for the commission, and thus it may be anticipated that the commission will have the services done for it at reasonable rates and in an efficient manner.

Honorable senators will observe that the agreement has been signed by fifteen companies. These include two companies engaged in stevedoring exclusively, and all of the more important Australian shipping companies, some of which are also engaged in stevedoring operations. Ft has not been possible for me to discuss the matter with all of the companies likely to be interested, but I have no doubt that all of those companies who have been engaged in the stevedoring and booking of cargo in Commonwealth ships, and possibly other companies who may be interested in doing so, will in due course make application to be joined as parties to the agreement. They have to-day all been posted an invitation to become parties to the agreement.

The bill itself is simple and mercifully brief. It seeks the approval of the Parliament to the agreement, which lias a currency of twenty years from the proclamation of the act, and provides that the commission shall do those things which it is required under the agreement to do, and will refrain from doing anything contrary to the terms of the agreement. It also empowers the Tariff Board to perform the functions of the independent authority in relation to shipbuilding matters. This is necessary because, under the Tariff Board Act, the board does not have the power to perform such a function. The Government believes that this bill and the agreement, in conjunction with the bill setting up the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, provide the opportunity of improving shipping services on the Australian coast. The Commonwealth ships will be continued in operation, and will continue to play their due part in providing shipping services on the coast. The position of the private companies is also protected, and they are afforded the opportunity, if they so wish, to expand their services as the demand for shipping services grows with the general expansion of Australia. The interests of the community are fully safeguarded in that if the shipping companies in any way fail to respond, it will be open to the commission to meet any deficiencies. The Government is confident that the commission and the private companies will each play their due part to the benefit of the Australian coastal trade, the shipbuilding industry and the people of Australia. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1133

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1956

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 30th May (vide page 1116).

Clauses 1 to 13 - by leave - considered together.

With the following amendment to clause 6, “ Interpretation “, by Senator MCKENNA : -

That, in clause fi, after sub-section (2.) of proposed section 4, the following sub-section be inserted: - ‘ (3.) The provisions of this Act conferring powers, functions or duties on the Minister or the Board shall be construed as requiring those authorities to exercise or perform those powers, functions or duties so as to afford to the general public and to religious, educational, cultural, political and social organizations opportunities for a fair and just share of ownership or control of licences and also a fair and just use of the facilities resulting from the holding of licences.”.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - I should like to take a moment or two to complete the remarks that I was making last night in answer to the comments by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). There is one matter, in particular, to which I wish to refer. The Minister mentioned what had been done by the Labour government in relation to the issue of some four or five licences during its term of office. I point out that those licences related to broadcasting alone, and that they were granted at a time when the broadcasting field in Australia was almost completely covered. The action of the Labour government of the day in granting these additional few licences was directed to ensuring that some of the gaps that had been left were thereby filled. Those licences were not granted in accordance with a new policy in a new field. They wore granted to fill gaps in an ‘existing field where government policy had long since been determined. There is no analogy between that position and the one where there is a virgin field, namely, the field of television, in connexion with which we are now attempting to shape policy in regard to the granting of licences.

I put it to the Minister that there is no relevance in the argument that he addressed to the chamber, when we test it against the field of television. The Minister justified what had been done, and rejected my proposal, on the ground that any company promoter might well have made application, might well have indicated that he proposed to make shares available to the public, and that in that way the public could have been interested. T point out to the committee that it is not for any private individual to serve the public interest. Only one body in Australia has that obligation, and that is the Government. One cannot expect a private individual to take all the risks of company promotion in a completely new and untested field, and to serve primarily, not his own interests, but those of the public. That makes altogether too heavy a demand upon human nature and the altruism of individuals. Tt was quite unreasonable for the Minister to suggest that some private individual might have applied for a licence under those conditions.

The Minister has not answered the questions that I posed when I moved the amendment. .Some of them were: Did the Government think of asking the stock exchanges of Australia to promote companies under the conditions that I mentioned? If it did not do so, what was its reason? If the Government did think of doing this, but rejected the idea, the Minister might well inform the committee why it was rejected. There has been no real objection by the committee to the terms of the amendment proposed by me on behalf of the Opposition. The point I want the committee to understand clearly is that if this proposal i* rejected it will amount to an endorsement of the policy already adopted by the Government and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which will be to continue giving fresh licences in Australia to newspaper, radio and film interests to the virtual exclusion of all other interests.

Senator BROWN:

– And to monopolies.

Senator McKENNA:

– A monopoly in the hands of those who already control the whole field of mass communications. That would be not only dangerous, but also completely wrong. For whatever reason, whether through lack of thought or through deliberation, the policy hitherto approved and put into effect is disastrously wrong, and anybody with any sense of democracy must see that that is so. Anybody who has any sense of appreciation of how the means of communication can be monopolized and used to produce one viewpoint only in a community will agree with that statement. A rejection of this amendment will be a refusal to accept the principles which have been approved by everybody during the debate.

The Minister claims that the Government has set its face against a monopoly in this matter and he points to the proposition that the Government is allowing the one ownership to control only two licences at the most in Australia. The monopoly that I am talking about. is that which is being given to newspapers, radio stations, and cinema and entertainment interests, interests which completely control the channels of communication to the Australian people. I am not talking about a monopoly holding all the television licences in Australia. The Opposition is opposed to that, and the Government is also, and has delimited that possibility. My attack is not based upon the number of stations. What I am aiming at is the centralization of the means of communication in a few hands. lt constitutes a complete danger in a democracy . and I hope that in the circumstances the committee will not reject this amendment which, on the face of it, underneath it and permeating it, seeks to set up a safeguard in a matter that is vital to the true welfare of Australia.

Senator COOPER:
Minis,ter for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I thought that last night I gave a very detailed explanation as to why the Government could not accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I can only reiterate that the Government gave very careful consideration to the report of the royal commission on the various ways in which we should approach the matter of calling applications for licences. The Government came to the conclusion, as I said last night, that it should bring the granting of licences right out into the open. It decided that it would not be done behind closed doors but that the public would know exactly what was going on. I again point out that everybody who was interested in applying for a licence had ten full weeks in which to do so. That should have enabled interested parties, such as the honorable senator has mentioned, to get together in some organization of their own and apply for a licence if they so desired. As a matter of fact one such combination did result, and T. refer to the combination of newspaper interests, electronic manufacturers, churches and a section of the Labour party, to which were subsequently added over 4,000 members of the public. I point out that connected with the interests which have been given licences ure approximately 34,000 Australian shareholders who are directly or indirectly interested in the four television companies. I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether Dr. Evatt, if his application for a licence had been successful, would have been prepared to accept as shareholders all the various organizations that the honorable senator has mentioned. I think Dr. Evatt’s mind has been running along the same channel as that of the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. Why, at that time, did he not get a group together and apply for a licence on behalf of it instead of on behalf of himself and, I understand, Mr. Dougherty of the Australian Workers Union? However, the Government, in granting these licences, has given every facility and every opportunity to all sections of the Australian people to be represented.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Very briefly, I want to make some comments. It seems to me to be obvious that neither the royal commission nor the Government addressed its mind to the proposal that I have put to this committee as to the proper approach that should have been made by the Government in the public interest. It is most unfortunate that neither the royal commission nor the Government did think about it, and even more unfortunate that they did not put it into effect. It is no answer to the arguments I have addressed to the Senate for the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to say that the applications were considered in the open. That is not facing up to the issue which I raise. The point is that if the public interest were to be served, the Minister, with his complete control of the conditions and form of licences, should have taken steps to ensure that as many members of the public as possible obtained an interest in licences and that an adequate opportunity was given to bodies of a public-spirited type and nature. Nor is it any answer to say that prospective applicants had ten full weeks in which to think out all the possibilities and lodge applications. No private individual was going to concern himself with the duty and burden of serving the public interest. That is the job, not of any individual, but of the Government.

The Minister asked me a question which I shall certainly answer. He asked whether, if Dr. Evatt on behalf of the Australian Labour party and Mr. Dougherty on behalf of the Australian Workers Union - both of them acting as trustees for the Australian Labour party and the trade union movement - had been granted a licence they would have admitted various bodies representing social, cultural and religious interests, and also the general public into a company they would have formed. All I can say in relation to that is that Dr. Evatt and Mr. Dougherty, as trustees for the bodies they represented, were facing the position that the Government had committed itself to a certain course of action. The Labour party had also fore-‘ seen what was about to happen, and at its 1955 conference warned the people of Australia that there was about to be granted a monopoly of this type to newspaper and radio interests. It was into that competitive field that Dr. Evatt and Mr. Dougherty entered. I should like to say that neither the trade union movement nor the Australian Labour party could themselves have commanded the requisite finances from their own resources. They would have been obliged to go to the public to raise the vast amount of capital required. The policy that would have been pursued in those circumstances is, unquestionably, the one that we have enunciated in the course of debating this amendment. One may well say to any applicant in the field, “ What do he and his associates know about television?” I suggest that that is a very fair question. Are any of the applicants competent, and have they the finance to carry on a television station? Those are the two big questions that could be asked.

Senator Anderson:

– They could be asked with a comparison between them and other people in mind.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, they are two fair questions to pose. There are very few people in Australia with experience in the field of administering companies of this nature, because hitherto we have had nothing of the kind in this country. Consider the company to which the Minister referred when he indicated that there were two clergymen, two company directors from newspapers and a member of the Trades and Labour Council of Sydney concerned. What experience from any kind of administrative or developmental viewpoint have any of those persons? The fact is that there is nobody in Australia at the administrative level who has any knowledge of television at all. So, what happens? It is inevitable that whatever company is formed - and here there are only a few such companies - will find the money to attract the brains with the know-how. There are technicians of various kinds in Australia who know what is required from the technical standpoint, and, unquestionably, their services will be available at the right fee and, indeed, they must make them available because there is nowhere else for them to work except for these companies. Whatever brains are available in Australia would be available to any company that obtained a licence, and if there is even an intelligent directorate it does not need to have particular knowledge of television because it, can go outside Australia to the numerous countries that have had vast experience of television, and buy the brains available there.

If I or anybody else formed a company and were responsible for it, we should face this difficulty about the knowhow, and we should solve it in exactly the way that I have indicated. If the Australian Labour party and the trade union movement combined and were granted a licence, we should first go on the public market in order to raise the money, as most similar concerns do, and pursue the principles enunciated in the amendment. Then, having established an intelligent directorate, we should make a quest for the brains needed and the know-how on. the lines that I have indicated. Every company properly organized and sponsored would have to follow exactly that procedure, and I say to the committee and to the honorable senator who is particularly interested in the phase that I am now dealing with, that that quite plainly is the position. A company with two newspaper directors, two clergymen and a member of the Trades and Labour Council of Sydney would have no advantage in knowledge or ability over five persons selected at random out of the Senate. Both groups of people would start from the same point in a virgin field and would have to apply their brains to solving the problems with which they would be faced, both financial and technical. There is no doubt that the approach would be made in the way that I have indicated.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– During the present debate, and during the second-reading debate on this measure, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) referred to the allocation of broadcasting licences, and laid particular emphasis on the fact that the Australian Labour party had granted two particular licences. He referred to one in South Australia and to one in Newcastle, which was known as 2HD. The Minister might have been gracious enough, when supplying those facts to honorable senators, to inform honorable senators of the circumstances in which those licences were issued. He knows full well that a debate took place in another place and also in the Senate in regard to the allocation of those licences, and he knows the results of those debates. I now desire to inform him that those licences were originally held by a religious organization and had been surrendered and, consequently, were not new licences at all. One of those licences had been allocated to the Methodist Mission in South Australia and to the Australian Labour party in that State. The issue of the licence in South Australia was made as a result of negotiations with legal persons who were handling the equity that the organization had in buildings and plant in a broadcasting station.

As a result of negotiations, everything having been found to be in order and the requirements of the broadcasting committee having been fulfilled, utimately a licence was issued to the Australian Labour party. That licence, 2HD in Newcastle, had previously been offered to the Church of England, but that body had offered a price £2,000 or £3,000 short of the price considered to be reasonable.

As a result of discussions that took place in the Senate, a former PostmasterGeneral, the late ex-senator William Gibson, who had had a very honorable record of service to this country, stated as a representative of the conservative party in the Parliament that if he had been Postmaster-General at the time he would have done exactly as I did as PostmasterGeneral in issuing the two licences concerned. During this debate the Minister has stressed the fact that the Labour party issued two licences, but I want to stress the fact that they were not new licences. They had been surrendered and were not in the category of those issued previously by conservative governments.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandMinister for Repatriation · CP

– I desire to make it perfectly clear to Senator Ashley that the South Australian licence was never mentioned by me. I mentioned 4KQ in Queensland, which was a new station.

Senator Ashley:

– The Minister mentioned 2HD.

Senator COOPER:

– No, the South Australian station was never mentioned at all according to the reports in Hansard. Station 4KQ and the Newcastle licence were the ones I mentioned. The Newcastle licence was a surrendered licence, and as far as I know the South Australian one was also surrendered, but 4KQ was a completely new licence.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

, - While speaking last night on the amendment at present before the committee, honorable senators opposite stated that it was doubtful whether the amendment would be sufficient to overcome all doubts in the minds of the members of the Government and their advisers. I desire to bring before the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) certain matters which arose during the time the Government was being advised on television, and during the investigations of the Royal Commission on Television. At that time it was clearly- intended that certain protection should be given in the television field, similar to that which, this amendment will provide. A press report on evidence given to the Royal

Cora mission on Television by the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Mr. R. J. Boyer, states - 3 ir. Boyer said that of thirteen countries tin the world now operating television, all except the U.S.A. had placed television under direct public control.

Other points from Mr. Boyer’s evidence were: -

Hours should be limited, to maintain standard ;

America to-day was offering T.V. channels to educational mid cultural organisations;

America had some splendid T.V. material but it was submerged in a mass of mediocre matter ;

The most popular programme was not necessarily the best;

No one should be entrusted with the grave responsibility of operating T.V. unless he was prepared to put the deepest public interest before his personal, political, financial or social advantage.

That statement does not need any expansion. It follows the lines of the amendment that has been proposed by the Opposition, but supporters of the Government have pointed to television in the United States of America to bolster their claim that there is not need for public control. They have said that the standard of television in the United States of America has risen to great heights. I invite them to consider a survey that was conducted in the United .States of America by a properly authorized body, the Southern California Committee of the National Association for Better Radio and Television. The survey showed that more than 50 per cent, of television programmes were objectionable. The organization which made the survey is a body whose committee members are representatives of such organizations as religious groups, educational institutions, civic groups and women’s clubs. A report on their survey states -

Of 52 programmes televised, only 20 were rated “ good “ or better. The remainder were described variously “ fair “, “ poor “, “ objectionable “ or “ most objectionable “.

Under an appropriately controlled TV system, such a finding would be impossible. In principle, TV is probably a force for good, but it is open to so many abuses that strict control is vital. Australia must learn from America’s mistakes.

The survey gave a classification of programmes on stations in the United States of America, and the report states -

KNXT had 9 hours 10 minutes per week. Two hours and 45 minutes were given to excellent and good programmes, 45 minutes to fair and poor, and 5 hours 40 minutes to objectionable programmes. KNBH had 14 hours 5 minutes per week. Three hours 30 minutes were excellent, 2 hours 45 minutes fair, 80 minutes poor, 2 hours 30 minutes objectionable and 3 hours 50 minutes were most objectionable. KTLA had 14 hours 35 minutes per week. Four hours 15 minutes good, 30 minutes fair, 30 minutes poor, G hours 30 minutes objectionable and 2 hours 50 minutes most objectionable. KECA-TV had S hours per week. One hour 30 minutes excellent, 2 hours 45 minutes good, 15 minutes fair, 15 minutes poor, 3 hours 15 minutes objectionable. KHJ-TV had no programme? for children.

I am citing a number of stations to show that the survey did not deal with isolated examples.

Senator McCallum:

– Nobody is disputing what the honorable senator has said.

Senator COOKE:

- Senator McCallum spoke along those lines last night. This survey shows that strict public control of television is necessary. It is useless for honorable senators on the Government side to argue that television stations cannot be controlled properly. They have stated that controls have been tried in America. I am showing the result, of the system of television that is in operation in the United States of America. This report also stated -

KTTB had 8 hours 15 minutes per week. One hour 45 minutes excellent, 1 hour good, 4 hours 30 minutes objectionable, 1 hour most objectionable. KALC had 5 hours per week. Two hours 30 minutes good, 2 hours 30 minutes objectionable.

The committee found only one outstanding science programme for children, and they noticed the absence of fine films made especially for children - stories of children and problems encountered by them in everyday living.

They noted that many companies whose commercials stress good nutrition and a balanced diet to build healthy bodies seemed to ignore this same precept as a foundation for a healthy mind. These groups are responsible for about 50 per cent, of the objectionable programmes.

The programmes in the “ objectionable “ category are rated thus mainly because the major theme is crime. Crime is never suitable as the major theme as a programme for children.

The committee investigated the programmes exhaustively, and it demanded r.hat there should he public control of television. Another section of its report referred to the findings of a judge and a school teacher, and stated -

Proof that these sorts of TV programmes are adversely affecting young minds are shown by the following comments: -

In Clifton, New Jersey Elementary School, Principal Charles M. Sheehan flatly blamed the late hours kept by children due to television programmes for school work inferior to my accepted standards”. Schoolmaster Sheehan announced some damaging statistics : “ Last year at this time there were but two failures in one class. This year, in the same class, there are 30 “.

Judge Albert J. McAloon of the Rhode Island Juvenile Court, said delinquency, was not caused by any one radio or TV show but “ a steady diet of crime, violence and ‘brutality does help in the development of a delinquent attitude “.

Therefore, I believe that the bill is not satisfactory. It will give control to persons who have been tried in other fields and have not been successful in maintaining proper standards for news and other programmes. The Government should not regard the amendments as unacceptable merely because they have been submitted by the Opposition. This bill is of great national importance, and will influence the Australian way of life for years to come. I ask the Government to place control of television where it will be most beneficial to the people.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

.- The speech that has been delivered by Senator Cooke does not justify the amendment. The evidence of Mr. Boyer was heard by the Royal Commission on Television. The findings of the commission are based on that and other evidence. I am sure that the .commissioners paid great attention to the evidence. It is quite true that objectionable matter has been included in television programmes in the United States of America, but the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Television have been made, and a code of standards has been drawn up and accepted. I have listened to Senator Cooke frequently, and I do not believe that he would give much liberty to anybody if he had his way. The code that has been prepared is worth trying, at least for a couple of years. It represents a deliberate attempt to prevent the televising of objectionable matter such as has appeared in American programmes. lt is based on the advice of the experts who knew that the objectionable matter was there. I believe that we should debate every clause of this bill as fully as possible, but, if we are going to get through it, do not let us go on repeating the same old stuff such as telling everybody it is a very good bill, and all that sort of prosy talk. Provision has been made in the bill itself to deal with this objectionable matter.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I should like to get from the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) an undertaking that he will at least put before the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) the suggestion made by the Opposition that the Postmaster-General might communicate with the stock exchanges of Australia and ask them whether, in the light of experience gained in the flotation of companies to operate television stations, they would be prepared to sponsor the flotation of companies, subject to the conditions that I have outlined, namely that reasonable brokerage or underwriting charges be fixed as approved by the Minister, that in the allotment of shares priority be granted to public bodies of the type I have indicated and, above all, to small shareholders in order to get as great a spread of public interest and control as possible. I realize that the Minister for Repatriation is not a free agent in this matter, that this is another Minister’s bill. Apparently, he has made up his mind that he cannot accept the amendment. But is he prepared to give me the undertaking that he will put that position to the PostmasterGeneral ?

Senator Cooper:

– Yes, I shall be only too pleased to bring the matter to the notice of the Postmaster-General.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D.Reid.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 1 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 14 - (1.) Section eight of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2a.). (2.) A member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who, at the commencement of this section, is an officer of the Department of the Treasury or of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department shall cease to hold office. (3.) The first appointment of a person as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to fill one of the vacancies caused by the operation of this section shall be for a period not exceeding one year and the first appointment of a person as such a member to fill the other vacancy so caused shall be for a period not exceeding two years.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I move -

That clause 14 be left out and the following clause inserted in place thereof: - “14. Section eight of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following subsection : - (1.) The Commission shall consist of nine members, at least one of whom shall be a woman and who shall include a resident of each State.’.”.

It might be convenient for the committee to refer to page 13 of the memorandum that has been circulated by the Government to see the present law in this matter. It will be seen from such reference that sub-section (1.) of section 8 reads -

The Commission shall consist of seven commissioners, at least one of whom shall be a woman.

It is proposed that the clause referred to in my amendment shall replace that. The effect of leaving out clause 14 will be to enable representatives of the Treasury and of the Postmaster-General’s Department who, at present, grace the membership of the commission with their presence, to retain their positions.

Next, it is proposed to add two more members to the commission. The idea is to make it possible for the commission to have a member who is resident in each State. I understand from those who have been intimately connected with the working of the commission that there is not the slightest objection to the present Treasury representative or to the present Postmaster-General’s representative as individuals. I understand that they have made, in their own right, a very useful contribution to the work of the commission and that there is no personal objection to those nominees at all. I understand that they have more than played their full part in guiding the destinies of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We of the Opposition feel that it is a desirable principle in a national undertaking that the Government, by the appointment of two representatives, one at the financial level and the other at the technical level in which the Postmaster-General plays a major role, should have a. say on the commission. That serves two purposes. Expert advice is available on the commission, and the Government has two lines of communication. In that way the public interest is best protected. We suggest the retention of the provision that at least one woman be a member of the commission, and we think it desirable that there should be a representative of every State. No doubt my Western Australian

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 1 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 14 - (1.) Section eight of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2a.). (2.) A member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who, at the commencement of this section, is an officer of the Department of the Treasury or of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department shall cease to hold office. (3.) The first appointment of a person as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to fill one of the vacancies caused by the operation of this section shall be for a period not exceeding one year and the first appointment of a person as such a member to fill the other vacancy so caused shall be for a period not exceeding two years.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I move -

That clause 14 be left out and the following clause inserted in place thereof: - “14. Section eight of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following subsection : - (1.) The Commission shall consist of nine members, at least one of whom shall be a woman and who shall include a resident of each State.’.”.

It might be convenient for the committee to refer to page 13 of the memorandum that has been circulated by the Government to see the present law in this matter. It will be seen from such reference that sub-section (1.) of section 8 reads -

The Commission shall consist of seven commissioners, at least one of whom shall be a woman.

It is proposed that the clause referred to in my amendment shall replace that. The effect of leaving out clause 14 will be to enable representatives of the Treasury and of the Postmaster-General’s Department who, at present, grace the membership of the commission with their presence, to retain their positions.

Next, it is proposed to add two more members to the commission. The idea is to make it possible for the commission to have a member who is resident in each State. I understand from those who have been intimately connected with the working of the commission that there is not the slightest objection to the present Treasury representative or to the present Postmaster-General’s representative as individuals. I understand that they have made, in their own right, a very useful contribution to the work of the commission and that there is no personal objection to those nominees at all. I understand that they have more than played their full part in guiding the destinies of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We of the Opposition feel that it is a desirable principle in a national undertaking that the Government, by the appointment of two representatives, one at the financial level and the other at the technical level in which the Postmaster-General plays a major role, should have a. say on the commission. That serves two purposes. Expert advice is available on the commission, and the Government has two lines of communication. In that way the public interest is best protected. We suggest the retention of the provision that at least one woman be a member of the commission, and we think it desirable that there should be a representative of every State. No doubt my Western Australian (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D.Reid.)

Ayes . . . . ..20

Noes .. .. ..25

Majority . . . . 5 colleagues will be able to address more forceful arguments than I can present regarding the disabilities in broadcasting which flow from the fact that Western Australia is not represented on the commission. With those comments, I commend the amendment to the committee.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

.- The Government has given very careful consideration to the constitution of the Australian Broadcasting Commission because of the important new responsibilities which have been imposed upon it. The Government did not overlook the fact that the Royal Commission on Television recommended that there should be nine members of the commission, but it felt that it was desirable to retain the commission at its present strength. On the one band this would ensure a good crosssection of the community, and on the other, an efficient working unit. Honorable senators will recall that the Gibson committee expressed the view that the commissioners should be five in number. The Government considers that it is wrong to have departmental representatives on the commission, however distinguished and well-fitted for this kind of work they may be. There is no doubt that departmental members on the present commission have been most efficient. However, the Government’s decision to discontinue the appointing of representatives of the Treasury and of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to the Australian Broadcasting Commission is supported by the views of the Gibson committee on the constitution of the commission. I quote from the report as follows : -

We consider that the Commissioners should not be specialists or representatives of particular interests or localities, but that they should be persons of acknowledged capacity, experience and judgment, imbued with high ideals, and sensible of a responsibility to contribute to the moral and intellectual wellbeing of the community. The Commissioners should be five in number and one of them should be a woman. They should be regarded as having a joint responsibility in the control of national broadcasting and should not consider themselves as individual units for the purpose of exercising specialized supervision over the service. Their main functions should be major matters of policy and finance.

The Government believes that the commission will be able to obtain from the Postmaster-General’s Department or from the Treasury or from any other government department specialist advice on any subjects on which it needs help. The objective in selecting members of the commission is to obtain a good crosssection of the community.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has urged the appointment of a representative from each State. Clause 14 provides for the appointment of seven members, and if this is agreed to, it would be practicable to contemplate the appointment of a representative from each State, as Senator McKenna has proposed in his amendment. 1 assure the honorable senator that when the Government is considering the appointment of the seven members of the commission it will keep his representations in mind. I regret that, owing to the reasons I have given, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– Another principle is involved which should be considered carefully. There is a convenience in having a representative from a department, particularly the Treasury, on such a body, but it is wrong in principle that public officials should, outside of Parliament, purport to represent the Government on such a body as the commission. This body will be ultimately responsible to the Parliament, and the commissioners appointed are to constitute a cross-section of the public. To appoint to the commission two officials who would represent, not necessarily the point of view of the Government of the day, or of the Parliament, but purely the official view of their Department, is undesirable. In saying that, I am not attacking such officials. However, anyone who is acquainted with the workings of public Departments knows that, over the years, traditions and attitudes of mind grow up, and these are represented by officials of the department. There is a distinctive Treasury point of view, and a Postal Department point of view, irrespective of what political party is in power or who is the ministerial head of those departments.

Although Senator Cooper has replied to the Leader of the Opposition, I should like Senator McKenna seriously to consider whether it is sound policy to have on a body such as this, direct departmental representatives.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I support the amendment moved by Senator McKenna, particularly in view of two propositions he has put forward. One is that each State should have a representative on the commission. For some years, until, I think, about 1950, Western Australia had a representative on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but since that time it has had none. Peculiar broadcasting conditions apply in Western Australia because of its vastness and the variation of climatic and other conditions which prevail in the outback districts and so that these factors may be given due attention, it is important that the people of Western Australia should have a representative on the commission. Programmes which were peculiarly Western Australian in nature were cut out of general broadcasting over the past couple of years, and it is obvious that such action would not have been taken if Western Australia had had a live voice on the commission. I agree with Senator McKenna’s second point that there should be at least one woman on the commission.

Senator Robertson:

– Why limit the number to one?

Senator TANGNEY:

– I agree with Senator Robertson that the number should not be limited to one, and I hope that the Government will not adhere to the idea of “at least one woman” as being the maximum representation of women on the commission. The members of this body should be chosen, not merely because they are men or women, but because they have ability to do the job. The commission will cater for a wide diversity of interests; consequently, it is imperative that there should be an adequate number of women repr esentatives as well as a representative from each pf the States.

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

– When another measure was being considered in this chamber some time ago, the Minister in charge of it referred to the adoption of part of the report of the Public Accounts Committee in relation to certain principles to which effect was being given in that bill as a means of determining the appointment of. a commissioner. His observations are applicable to the question which is implicit in the clause now under discussion, and the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). In the 21st report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, consideration was given to the position of the Treasury representative on that commission and to the question of where his responsibilities lay. Did he have responsibility only as a commissioner? Did he have an additional or parallel responsibility as a Treasury representative, and if so, was his responsibility as a Treasury representative primarily to his own Minister, the Treasurer; or in conjunction with his responsibility as a commissioner, was his responsibility to the Minister in control of and responsible for the administration of the act?

The committee at that time, and in it? report, canvassed the principles which have been discussed by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and also by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in the Dominion of Canada. The general opinion expressed by the Public Account?. Committee in England was that a Treasury representative should be appointed to bodies where the State had a direct financial responsibility and obligation. I have put that in the very briefest of terms.

When that report was submitted to the Lords of the Treasury, their Lordships did not altogether agree with the proposition, but they suggested that, if it were decided that there should be governmental representatives on bodies which were receiving grants in aid - and this body could be put in that category - then there was a lot to be said for the appointment of at least a representative of the department concerned. In other words, if their Lordships were to be faced with the proposition which is enunciated by the Government in this bill, concerning the elimination of both, the Treasury representative and the representative of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, as such, although they might set their faces against a Treasury representative being appointed, they would not set their faces against the elimination of both representatives. At least, if they came down on one side it would be on the departmental side; but they would not come down on the side on which the Government is now coming down, and say that neither depa rtment should be represented.

As I say, I am referring to this report of the committee, because this principle has actually been adopted in legislation launched in this chamber to-day. I commend to the Minister the rather long observations and references on this particular aspect of semi-public corporations, with autonomy and independence of operation, to which the Public Accounts Committee has referred. This matter came to my attention only a few moments ago, and if I am able to find them quickly, I shall read to the committee some extracts which might make the position clearer. The United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee stated -

In recent years an increasing volume of governmental activity lias been entrusted, not to government departments with their own accounting officers, answerable directly to the Committee of Public Accounts, but to independent or semi-independent bodies, generally appointed by Ministers and financed from public moneys but not directly responsible to Parliament. Your Committee have therefore looked into the question of Treasury control over the expenditure of such bodies, and in particular have inquired whether the Treasury normally appoint a nominee on the governing body of the organization, as they formerly did on the Boards of Special Area Trading Estates Companies. The Treasury said that in their experience such appointments were of doubtful value. . . .

The committee then went on to give its own point of view. The report states that the United Kingdom Treasury made the point, in its reply to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, that in many cases it was inappropriate to provide nominees with direct and independent responsibility to the Treasury. Their Lordships said -

My Lords take note of the Committee’s suggestion that, in order to improve control over the financial transactions of organization; largely or entirely supported out of public funds, Treasury nominees should be appointed either as full members or assessors. My Lords desire to emphasize, in the first place, that, with the large majority of independent organizations which are financed out of public funds, it is not the Treasury but some other department which has the immediate responsibility for controlling the finances of the body.

That is the point that I was making earlier. Apparently, their Lordships contemplated that at least there should be a direct representative of the department concerned.

The Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament canvassed the opinions of the corresponding body in the United Kingdom, and from the reply of their Lordships of the Treasury and the position in Canada, I should say that the general impression given was that there was considerable merit in having the department directly and particularly represented. Because this report of the committee is one of the few modern instances - perhaps the only recent instance - in which this principle has received the direct advertence of members of this Parliament, I feel that this report should have been perused by the Government in this regard, as it has been perused in the other respect to which I have referred. Had that been done, I think that the Government might not have determined to repeal the sub-section, as it proposes, but would in fact either have retained both direct departmental representations, or at least come down on the side of the principle of having directly represented the department which is primarily involved. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition, and I commend to the Government the adoption of the principle to which I have referred.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to comment briefly on Senator McCallum’s contribution. I do not think that there is a principle of the nature affirmed by the honorable senator. If there is a principle of responsibility, I suggest it is this : That the Minister, with his responsibility for the administration of the national broadcasting service, through the commission, is the one who is responsible to the Parliament, and if he has functioning under him a body with complete autonomy, he has very little true responsibility. So far as he has any authority over the body at all - and he definitely has authority under the proposed legislation - it is not sufficient for him merely to lay down general lines of policy; he has to know what goes on from day to day. On the argument addressed to the committee by Senator Byrne a few moments ago, I should say that the principle emerges that unquestionably the Postmaster-General should be represented on the body.

Senator McCallum:

– He can always talk to the chairman.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, he can talk to him, but it is definitely better to have one of the officers of his department charged with the responsibility of keeping him posted as to what goes on. As the honorable senator knows, there is the most intimate link between the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the commission.

I do not wish to prolong the debate on this clause, because there are other clauses to be dealt with. T am thankful to the Minister for recognizing the possibility that the Government, in filling the two vacancies, which, apparently, he is going to force it to do, will consider the claims of a Western Australian to sit on the body. I shall be interested to see that development.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I shall vote against the amendment because I consider that, even in the suggestion that has been made that at least one woman should be on the body, there is a danger. I am sure that Senator Tangney will agree with me, because the adoption of the suggestion would impose a limitation and prevent the Government from adhering to that part of the charter of the United Nations, which Australia has signed, which provides that there shall be no discrimination between the sexes. Why should there be a provision, in a bill of this kind, that mem bers of only one sex shall be appointed to this body? I point out to the committee that it is not outside the bounds of possibility, having regard to the great advances of science to-day, for a woman to be the very best person, from the point of view of technical qualifications, who could be appointed to the body. Do not let us forget that it was a woman who discovered the power of the atom, which led to the development of the atom bomb, to her sorrow and ours. I shall vote against the amendment because I do not think that it meets modern conditions at all.

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

– I do not wish to pursue this matter unduly, but when I spoke a few moments ago I could not find the particular reference in the report of the Public Accounts Committee, to which T wished to direct the attention of the Senate, concerning the principle with which I had been dealing. I now make this further short quotation from Their Lordships’ comments -

The basic safeguard against the waste of public funds, in the hands of grant-aided bodies lies, in Their Lordships’ view, in the character and capacity of the management (including the permanent officials of the organization, in addition to the members of the governing Board or Council) and in close and intelligent co-operation with the parent Department; and my Lords would be opposed, in principle, to any step which tended to weaken the sense of financial responsibility of the body concerned. They recognize, however, that, in certain circumstances, the appointment of Departmental representatives can provide an important safeguard on the expenditure of public funds, and they assure the Committee that they will consider the appointment of Treasury or Departmental nominees, as occasion arises, either when .new bodies deriving substantial support from public funds are being contemplated, or when circumstances arise in the case of existing bodies which might make such a course desirable.

That is a. very strong commendation by Their Lordships of the Treasury and I commend it to the Minister in the hope that the Government will accept the Opposition’s amendment.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D.Reid.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 23

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 37 - by leave - considered together and agreed to.

Clause 38 -

Division 1 of Part III. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - “48. Subject to this Act, a licence continues in force -

in the case of a licence granted otherwise than by way of the renewal of a licence - for a period of five years commencing on a date specified in the licence; and

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I move -

That in proposed section 48, the words “five years “ be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the words “three years”.

The argument in support of the amendment is very brief, but also very powerful, It is this: That whereas, up to the present time, the Broadcasting Act has provided that licences may be granted by the Minister for a period not exceeding three years - the period could be less, but it may be more - the bill now proposes in respect of both broadcasting and television licences, that the licence shall be granted initially for a period of five years. I can quite understand that, as a long period of establishment may be involved for a television station, there could be an argument in favour of a more defined policy - not necessarily that the period should be five years, but that it should be defined. However, at this stage of the development of broad casting, there could be no excuse at. all for extending the period in respect of the relatively few new licences that may be given.

I point out that the whole principle involved here is, that these people who are holding licences for what amounts to providing an important public service or utility, should come before the board for review at frequent intervals. That principle was enunciated by the royal commission itself, on page 138, at paragraph 360. I do not want to take up the time of the committee by reading that paragraph, but if honorable senators care to refer to it, they will find, about the middle of page 138, a recommendation by the royal commission that the same period, not exceeding three years, should be the term employed in the act. The recommendation concludes with these words -

In the following chapter we refer to the significance, from the point of view of maintenance of programme standards, of the annual review of the performance of television stations: it would seem, indeed, that in a licensing system, with provision for annual, or at least frequent, renewals of licences, lies the only effective administrative device for securing positive adherence to the high standards of programmes which arc clearly desirable.

I put it to the Minister that that is a reason for not extending this period. We do not even ask that it be for a period not exceeding three years, which was the provision hitherto, but say three years, the period recommended by the royal commission which seized upon the real reason for our proposal.I shall not repeat that reason.

Senator COOPER:
Minister forRepatriation · Queensland · CP

– The Government has given careful consideration to the duration of the new licences. It is true that section 48 of the act provides that licences may be granted for an initial period not exceeding three years and for subsequent renewals for twelvemonthly periods. That answers part of the honorable senator’s argument. In this instance, the periods of renewal after the first five years will be twelvemonthly.

Senator McKenna:

– “We are not worrying about that; it is the duration of the initial grant about which we are concerned.

Senator COOPER:

– The Government considers that the longer period is fully justified. Licensees of both television and broadcasting stations have to invest great sums of money in establishing the services which they are authorized by a licence to conduct, and, frequently, the services are unprofitable in the early stages of their operation. In those circumstances, the Government believes that the duration of the original licence should be five years. As a licensee of a television station will not be in a position to commence a regular service until about one year after the grant of the licence, the effective period will be about four years, or, perhaps, slightly longer. The Government believes that it is giving licensees a fair and just deal and that the provision of a period of three years would, in actual fact, be less than three years. Having considered all the circumstances, the Government believes that it is giving a fair deal to licensees. It cannot accept the amendment, but will abide by its original determination of five years.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (TheChairman - Senator, the Hon. A. D.Reid.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 - “ 58. A licensee shall not broadcast or televise a programme except during such hours as the Board determines.

Senator COOPER:
Minister forRepatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That, in proposed section 58, the words “ a programme “ be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the word “programmes”.

As proposed section 58 is drafted, it might be construed to mean that the board could direct a particular item to be broadcast or televised at a specified hour. As this is not the intention, it is desired to alter the proposed section to read -

A licensee shall not broadcast or televise programmes except during such hours as the Board determines.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of clause postponed.

Clauses 41 to 45 - by leave - considered together and agreed to.

Clause 46 -

Part IV. of the Principal Act is repealed.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

, - I move -

That the words “ is repealed “ be omitted with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) of section seventy-two the words ‘ Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting and Television ‘ ; and

by inserting in section eighty-live, after the word ‘ broadcasting the words ‘ or television ‘ “.

The effect of the proposed amendment is obvious. The clause that the committee is at present considering proposes to delete all reference in the present act to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting. It is true that that committee has not functioned for a very considerable period, and it may well be that that is because broadcasting is so far advanced now, and has been operating for so long; but nevertheless the Opposition considers that provision for the committee should remain in the act.

The purpose of the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition is to enable all the provisions relating to the broadcasting committee to remain in the act, and in addition to confer on it power over television. I shall address a very brief argument to the committee to the effect that just as in the formative stage of broadcasting that committee did excellent work, so it may exercise supervision and do excellent work in respect of the entirely new medium of television. I believe that it would be a great pity if the excellent watch-dog facilities of that committee were not used. At this stage I shall not address myself further to the argument on the amendment.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

[5.81- - The effect of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is to retain in the present act the provision for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting. The Government realizes that this committee has been of considerable value. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting was appointed in 1942 on the recommendation of the Gibson committee, and in the first few years of its existence it examined certain questions, including some which were deferred for its consideration by the Gibson committee. I was a member of that committee, and so I may say that I have some knowledge of it. It undoubtedly did useful work, but the situation had changed when the present Government assumed office in 1949.

In the preceding year legislation had been passed to establish the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which body commenced operations on the 15th March, 1949. In the course of the debate on the bill under which the board was established, it was stated on behalf of the government of the day that the board was to be given very wide powers to conduct investigations. In fact, the effects of the establishment of the board on the activities of the standing committee are apparent from . the fact that the last report of the standing committee was made in September, 1948. It did not make a report to the Parliament between that time and the defeat of the Chifley Government at the end of 1949.

It is pertinent to mention, in view of Senator McKenna’s remarks, that the standing committee was not asked to consider the Government’s proposal to appoint a board, a matter which involved a very important change in the control of broadcasting. The board has now, as was envisaged by the Chifley Government, made some very important investigations, and under this bill it is to be empowered to conduct public inquiries on important matters relating to the broadcasting and television services. In the circumstances, the Government’s decision to omit from the act the provision for the appointment of ‘ the standing committee is fully justified, and the Government is therefore not prepared to accept, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania ) [5.11 J. - I support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). I was surprised to hear the opinion stated by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) about thi3 particular matter, because be him self was associated with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, and is aware of the important work that it did during the early developmental period of broadcasting. I am also surprised that honorable senators on the Government side have not been seized of the importance of appointing parliamentary committees of the nature of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee, and of extending that principle to the appointment of a parliamentary committee on broadcasting and television.

Tremendous responsibilities are being placed upon the shoulders of Ministers, particularly the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), and parliamentary committees can relieve Ministers of some of those responsibilities by giving them assistance at the political level. I am sorry that a. matter such as television cannot be kept out of political struggles, because there are many things which will have to be decided on in the future which, if not decided by an all-party committee, may be shaded politically. For example, the matter of changing over to colour television may arise, and it may have to be decided whether a compromise will be introduced under which black and white sets will be altered to receive coloured television. That is an important matter which perhaps might have to be decided, anc! which should be decided by a parliamentary committee.

Again, new fields will open up for the extension of television which will have a high political content,, and such matters should be decided by a standing committee. There is no doubt that the members and senators of the Parliament can make contributions to the advice available to the responsible Minister in any department, particularly in a department like the Postmaster-General’s Department. A parliamentary committee on broadcasting and television could be the very useful watch dog of the Postmaster-General during the formative years of television in Australia.

T suggest that the Minister has passed this very important matter over far too lightly, because we are entering a new phase of government in this country when some of the tremendous respon sibilities of Ministers must be delegated to parliamentary committees. It has been repeatedly stated from the Government side of the chamber that the committee system should be extended, and I deplore very much the abolition of an important committee. Although the committee under consideration may not function continuously, the very fact that there is such a committee and that matters may be referred to it, is most important. Therefore, the repeal of the part of the act which makes provision for this committee is most deplorable, and I strongly support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.

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

– During this debate, Senator Willesee suggested that, after a period of trial of three or four years, the operation of television should be closely scrutinized. That suggestion was supported by Senator McCallum and by me. If a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting were appointed, we would have at hand a body that would be particularly well fitted to discharge that duty. This appears to be an inappropriate time for us to be rid of such a committee. If the Government does not accept the amendment, it should at least consider the possible re-establishment of the committee, bearing in mind the need for a scrutiny of television in the next three or four years by members of the Parliament from both Houses and all parties.

While this medium of communication and entertainment is in the experimental stages, we can expect much confusion and dislocation. Its great social impact will be manifest from month to .month and from year to year. Almost inevitably, it will be necessary to amend legislation and ma,ke a new approach to television at the end of three or four years. The Parliament should not be called upon at that stage to rely upon the experience of those who have been involved in handling television commercially or administratively. The Parliament should be in a position to accept evidence from any source it might select. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting would have the power, and would be adequately fitted and constituted, to discharge that duty. If the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, at least it should keep the reestablishment of the committee clearly in mind. It should be conscious of the need to reconstitute the committee after a waiting period of two or three years, and to provide it with powers and functions so that it may report to the Parliament before this legislation is altered substantially. Such amendments are certain to be essential after television has been in operation for two or three years.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I believe that there is great merit in the suggestion that the Senate, in particular, should watch the operation of television and that, at some stage in the future, it should appoint a committee to consider, the matter, but I have not a very happy recollection of the former Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting. There was a strong feeling while it operated - perhaps unwarranted - that it was looked upon as a body to share authority with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, possibly, to have some direct influence on commentators and others associated with broadcasting. I should have to think hard before I would support the appointment of such a committee at this stage.

I believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be, as nearly as possible, an independent corporation, and that it should be controlled ultimately only by the Parliament itself. I believe that there has been interference in the work of the commission by Ministers in the past, as I said in my second-reading speech, and I was not referring only to Ministers from one political party. I know of two instances of interference - one on the part of a member of the party now in Opposition, and one from the United Australia party when its members were sitting on this side of the chamber. En my opinion they were ill-advised. C know that we lost a very fine chairman - I refer to Mr. Cleary, a man who did more, in my opinion, than anybody else for broadcasting - because of a feeling of insecurity that he had. This is a personal matter. I cannot tell honorable senators how I know of this, but it is known to me.

Until the commission is strengthened and its authority assured, I would oppose the appointment of a committee.

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

– How did the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting interfere with administration?

Senator McCALLUM:

– I cannot say that because there is nothing in the constitution of the committee to provide for such activity. I believe that if we ha ire a committee system, it should be free of all suspicion that it is being used by anybody for purposes outside parliamentary control. That suspicion was current in broadcasting circles in connexion with the previous committee. I am not opposed to the system of appointing committees; I believe that we might consider the appointment of a committee in the future, but I could not consider making the suggested provision in the bill.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I believe that the Government can see the necessity for a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting. The arguments that have been adduced by Senator McCallum are fallacious. The previous committee did not have power to interfere with the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but it was a medium of close contact with radio broadcasting and, through it, Parliament was able to be informed. An attempt was made to watch the development of broadcasting, and the Opposition believes that a committee responsible to the Parliament, but without power of direction, should be appointed to watch the development of television in its early stages. Throughout the bill, there is a tendency to give those associated with television a free hand for a period that is more than liberal.

Speakers on the Government side have commented upon the amendments submitted by the Opposition in a similar vein. They have agreed that there is a necessity for the requests of the Opposition, but have stated that there must be an initial period of development before the Government will act. The period of licences has been extended to five years. The Opposition has suggested that they should operate for only three years so that the situation may be reviewed at the end of that time to ascertain whether television has operated as Parliament intends. The Opposition suggests, in the amendment before the committee, that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting should be appointed to report to the Parliament, independently of those who are engaged in the administration of television and its subsidiaries. 1 believe ifr is essential, from the point of view of the Parliament, that such < committee should operate.

The statements that have been made by Senator McCallum were based on hearsay, because the previous parliamentary broadcasting committee had no power to interfere in the administration of broadcasting, [t might have attempted to do so. If if Hd, it should have been brought back on to the rails, but I do not think Senator McCallum has produced arguments strong enough to make us discard the accepted practice of appointing a committee to review the operations of a medium such as television. I believe that a committee would be able to do work that is essentia t in the formative stages of television in Australia.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- I f the amendment proposed by the Leader nf the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is not adopted, a parliamentary committee

Ull broadcasting cannot function at all. It appears that I am at variance with supporters of the Government, and differ slightly from members of the Australian Labour party which I support, in respect of some matters contained in the bill. I Jo not believe that we should have a broadcasting commission at all. I believe that the legislation should be administered by the responsible Minister. He should be entirely responsible for the administration of all provisions of the measure. All the work that will be carried out by the commission could bp performed very well by public servants. They function in other important undertakings quite satisfactorily. There is no reason why the Government should set uri a. commission to deal with television. The hold of private interests on television will be more firmly established by the introduction of five-year licences. T think it is unnecessary to have a commission constituted in the way proposed under this measure. An important point to remember is that all these things are subject to Government policy. Without traversing again the argument I put forward with relation to the fact that these licences are to be granted for a period of five years, I remind the committee that governments are elected for a term of only three years. That being so, it is possible for a new government to be elected at some time during the currency of the licence. If its policy should happen to differ from that of its predecessor, it would have no opportunity to implement it in certain instances. The amendment should be carried, mainly for the reason that there should be some committee to supervise broadcasting and radio activities.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 23

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.

Clause 49-

Sections eighty-eight to ninety-three (inclusive) of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “S3. - (1.) The Commission and licensees (2.) Not less than five per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of the Commission, and not less than five per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of a commercial broadcasting station, in the broadcasting of music shall be devoted to the broadcasting of works of composers who are Australians. “ 88a. The Commission or the holder of a licence for a commercial television station shall not televise, either directly, or by means of any recording, film or other material or device, the whole or a part of any sporting event or other entertainment held in Australia, after the commencement of this section, in a place to which a charge is made for admission, except in accordance with an agreement with the promoter of the sporting event or other entertainment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

That, in proposed section 88 (2.), the words ‘five per centum” (twice occurring) be left out with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “seven and one-half per centum “.

The purpose of the amendment becomes obvious upon reference to the particular proposed sub-section. The bill seeks to lift the present minimum from 2f per cent, to 5 per cent. Although that is an improvement, the Opposition proposes that the figure should be increased from 5 per cent, to 7i per cent. Two purposes would be served by doing that. It would provide, first, greater coverage for Australian composers whose works are on the market at the moment; and secondly, an incentive to Australian composers to proceed with their composing. It may be argued that there will not be enough in the field to keep the stations fully occupied; but the committee will note that in this clause we are referring solely to broadcasting stations, and not to television programmes. Just as when the minimum was fixed, at 2£ per cent, the time actually used ran very close to 5 per cent., we believe that if the minimum is fixed at 7i per cent, it will be very speedily obtained, with advantage to the broadcasting of music itself and to Australian composers.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

– I disagree with what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has said about laying down a specific percentage of time for Australian composers. I refer the committee to an article which appears in to-day’s South Australian Advertiser under the heading, “ First TV Service on November 4 “. In that . article, the manager of Herald-Sun TV Proprietary Limited, Mr. Keith Cairns, stated that the company proposed to begin transmissions of test patterns and limited experimental transmission of film as from the 16th July. Referring to local productions, the article states -

Locally produced programmes, excluding news, would represent approximately 20 per cent, of the wide range of feature material shown.

I suggest that this article almost proves the advisability of keeping the clause as flexible as it now stands:

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I am quite sure that honorable senators on both side? of the committee look forward with interest to the time when Australian broadcasting and television stations will be devoting to Australian compositions a greater proportion of their musical programmes than the 5 per cent, provided for in the bill. However, the Government considers it to be in the best interests of Australian music not to attempt to move too fast in this field. It is obvious that the existing quota of % per cent, has had a beneficial result ; and it is to be expected that the increase to 5 per cent, will likewise result in a steady rise in the use of Australian compositions. The Government believes that a reasonable and steadily increasing proportion of Australian music of good quality will provide greater encouragement and more lasting benefits for Australian composers as well as a better programme balance than a disproportionate number of items of lower merit which, on past experience, could result if the Government were to adopt the Opposition’s amendment that the quota be increased to 1 per cent. In all the circumstances the Government considers it best to retain the quota of 5 per cent., which is proposed in clause 49 find to review the effect of this provision in two or three years’ time. That can always be done. It is easy to increase the quota but it would be very hard to decrease it. It is proposed, therefore, not to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the amendment providing for an increase in the quota of Australian works to be used in television programmes. Australia possesses some of the finest talent in the field of music but its discovery has been left largely to commercial radio stations through such programmes as “ Mobil Quest “, “ Australia’s Amateur Hour “, and the “ P. and A. Parade “, which have brought to the public notice some fine Australian artists. If Australian composers were given similar encouragement to produce, not only popular songs but also classical music, a similar result would follow. It should be the responsibility of the commission to devote a definite part of its activities to the finding and developing of talent of this kind and to maintain a high standard of works.

Evidence was given before the Royal Commission ‘ on Television that some of the recording companies and music distributors were inclined to favour the popular, quick-selling lines of music, and to dampen the ardour of Australian writers of classical music. My attention was directed to the experience of a lady composer whose songs had been published and distributed, but which, after one recording or playing of them, were forgotten.. She was paid a miserable 5s. as a performing right after having written the songs and given the sole rights to a publishing company. In various types of businesses a silent monopoly is growing up and it appears that in the field of music it is not absent. As a consequence, hidden talent which might be encouraged to write high standard musical works is left undiscovered and undeveloped.

Surely an obligation should be placed fairly on the shoulders of the commission to encourage local talent. The fixing of such a quota would constitute a great contribution to the cultivation and improvement of art and culture in Aus tralia. It is important that a minimum quota of at least 7-J per cent, should be fixed for Australian works used in programmes. The result could be the production of entirely new Australian folk songs and works portraying the Australian way of life in a truly Australian manner, which would be a vast improvement on boogie-woogie and “ canned “ music on which radio stations appear to rely to fill up their programmes. Although this type of music, imported from other countries, might appeal to the “ hill-billy “ instincts in some listeners, it is of no help in the development of high cultural standards in Australia. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (.Senator McKenna) merits full consideration because its effect will be to give Australian musicwriters of undoubted ability and talent encouragement to produce works of a high standard.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am confident that every honorable senator is anxious that the greatest proportion possible of Australian talent should be used in broadcasting and television programmes. We certainly enjoy and appreciate good Australian works, but the amendment of the Opposition may not assist in popularizing the works of Australians. It may have the opposite effect, and consequently it would be unwise to accept the proposal. Radio stations, in arranging their programmes are always eager to incorporate any works that are good and which will appeal to the public, and if Australian composers or artists submit to them works or performances which are acceptable they will be readily included and used over and over again. That has been done, to the enjoyment of the listening public. The standard of Australian works can be very high, and as long as that standard is maintained the effect will be that all kinds of such items will take their place, in their own right, in the programmes, and automatically the proportion of Australian works used will increase. Already Australian artists have made their mark, not only in their own country but also overseas, and I hope that they will continue to do so. I support the clause, but oppose the amendment.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– For the very reason that Senator Annabelle Rankin opposes the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), I support it. One is amazed to read press reports of Australian artists who have been forced to go overseas to obtain recognition of their ability because they have received little or no encouragement in this country. Such reports can be taken as correct. The fact that during the past eighteen months or two years a large number of Australian artists, providing all forms of entertainment, have bad to do this is a poor commentary on the attitude towards them adopted by broadcasting authorities.

Sitting suspended from, 5.k5 io 8 p.m.

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, L was expressing support for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and I gave as my reason for doing so the fact that Australian artists in all forms of entertainment were not receiving sufficient encouragement from the National Parliament. Whatever we may do in relation to this bill, it cannot be denied that television will soon be an accomplished, fact. We cannot stand in the way of progress, although some of us may see this new medium in a slightly different light from that in which the younger generation secs it. I believe that it is the duty of this Parliament to encourage, whenever possible, art forms of every description. Having in mind the words of the Minister concerning the power that television will yield in this country, T. think that this is a favorable opportunity for the Parliament to encourage Australian artists. I long for the day when we shall be able to pay to hear Australian artists and applaud them. instead if the Johnny Rays, the Yat King Coles, the Burl Ives and others who pomp from overseas, with due respect, of course, to the efficiency of those visiting artists.

Senator McCALLUM:

Mr. Chairman, I have become a little doubtful about the stage that we have reached, because our attention has been concentrated on the amendments. I have the impression that we are dealing only with the amendments a3 they touch on. certain clauses. Could you tell me exactly the stage we have reached, because there are certain clause? with which I want to deal?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - The committee has completed its consideration to clause 4S, and is now on clause 49. Clause 40 has been postponed until we complete clause 49.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The amendment now before the committee is No. 8 of the amendments that I propose, and it deals with the quota of time which broadcasting stations devote to music by Australian composers. With regard to the debate that has taken place. I have only two comments to make. It was suggested that television will be in operation in Australia on the 4th November next.

Senator Critchley:

– Will that be Melbourne Cup day?

Senator McKENNA:

– It certainly will be very close to it. It was argued that it was unwise to fix a quota, because the television authority had indicated that it would be using 20 per cent, of Australian productions. I feel that that has no relevance to the amendment that I am moving. We are not now discussing television at all. The two forms of presentation, radio and television, are entirely different and call for completely different qualities and types of programme. If we were to argue the question : .What is an appropriate quota for television ? I should argue that it should be much higher than the quota for radio, but this matter is more relevant to a later amendment that I propose to move, and for that reason I shall leave it now.

If television can be in operation by the 4th November, that gives point to the question : why the need for a five-year licence? If television can be in action so quickly, if it can be established, in production and revenue-earning by that date, why the need for the five-year licence ?

The only other comment I want to make flows from what the Minister has said. I point out that when the maximum under the present act was fixed at 2-J per cent., the Australian Broadcasting Commission had no difficulty in reaching 4.7 per cent, in the presentation of Australian music.

Senator Scott:

– What percentage did the commercial stations reach?

Senator McKENNA:

– They varied. They averaged 3.9 per cent., and there were great variations up to that figure. I am merely making the point that a body of the stature of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was able to reach 4.7 per cent., and if it could do that, every other radio station could achieve the same standard if it wished to do so. I do not accept the suggestion that if the percentage were raised beyond » per cent, there would be a vast amount of shoddy which the stations would bc compelled to use. The simple and true answer to that is that there is no difficulty about repeating Australian compositions of real merit. If they are of real merit they will bear repetition, and there are many Australian compositions that have wide and general popularity. I think that no good argument has been advanced as to why the percentage, since we are actually accepting the principle of quotas, should not be lifted beyond *n per cent., which already has been almost attained as a standard, to 7-J per cent. The great virtue of doing that would be that a stimulus would be given to Australian composers by finding that there was wider scope for the use of their works. I think we should grasp the opportunity to provide that stimulus, and the amendment affords such an opportunity.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I find great difficulty in understanding why the Opposition is holding out for 5 per cent., which is not a maximum, but a minimum. Surely, honorable senators opposite understand that a publisher of books or musical and theatrical scores, and things of that kind, is only too willing to find new talent or good works. Publishers do not turn talent away, but look for it all the time. T suggest that the same thing will happen with television as has happened in the past with the Australian Broadcasting

Commission’s broadcasting programmes. The television authorities will look for talent in Australia, and if it is there they will use it.

I look forward to seeing a greater percentage than 5 per cent, of Australian work. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) referred to the need for a stimulus. I do not think that raising the percentage to 1 per cent, in this bill would act as a stimulus, because the stimulus is already there. An artist wants to create. He does not need a stimulus by the provision of a certain percentage in a bill that he probably knows nothing about. I suggest that, in this respect, we are taking up a lot of time with a matter that really does not mean a great deal. If the artists are there, their work will be accepted and published.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I am amazed by the attitude of the Opposition in regard to this amendment. I read the second-reading speech of the Minister in conjunction with a publication called Broadcasting and Television, which I have here. The Minister stated that it is the intention of the Government to give Australian producers the maximum amount of time possible on television, as well as on the radio. However, the people concerned with the commercial stations have different views. In Broadcasting and Television, of the 18th May, Mr. Bryn Samuel, the president of the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations, is reported to have said in relation to Australian compositions -

A.F.C.B.S. members strongly reject the Government’s proposal to increase the present quota for the broadcasting of Australian compositions from 2-i per cent, to 5 per cent.

The article continued -

According to Samuel, his members found the attitude of the Government concerning quotas difficult to understand and thoroughly inconsistent. The Postmaster-General stated in his second-reading speech that “we do not, however, accept the principle of laying down quotas generally, which is an unsatisfactory and dangerous procedure “, but forthwith stated tha.t in respect of broadcasting stations’ quotas, they should be increased to 5 per cent. A good Australian composition will be broadcast on its merits and irrespective of any quota. This Federation is in accord with the principle of encouraging Australian composers and this is evidenced by the fact that although the present quota is 2.5 per cent., in actual fact the average percentage broadcast last year by the 106 commercial broadcasting stations was 3.91 per cent. Samuel pointed out that the availability of recordings of Australian compositions does not justify the 5 per cent, quota.

I believe that the Minister considered a lot of evidence on this matter before deciding on the quota of 5 per cent. He also took into consideration the fact that the royal commission stated that the quota should not exceed 5 per cent. In my opinion, it would be wise not to alter the present provision in the bill and I shall, therefore, vote against the amendment.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

Senator Kendall said that he did not believe that the quota of 5 per cent, would be the minimum, and that a larger quota would be acceptable.

Senator Kendall:

– I said that I did not think it was the maximum.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. I should like to make this comment: many fine Australian compositions were never popularized by our radio stations until overseas artists visited Australia during the last few years. Let us consider the wide range of typical Australian ballads that were brought to light over the radio by Burl Ives - excellent compositions that had been mouldering away on a shelf, with only a few copies available, for 40 or 50 years, despite the fact that the radio stations had provided for 4.7 per cent, of Australian compositions. It remained for an American of the calibre and intellect of Burl Ives to treat the Australian public to these compositions. The people in the radio industry who are responsible for developing Australian compositions stand indicted for having allowed those ballads to remain in obscurity for so long. The song, Click Go the Shears., which the old shearers used to sing in the shearing sheds, is very popular in the United States of America, but steps were never taken to popularize that composition in Australia. The ballad, The Wild Colonial Boy, which was made famous by Delia Murphy, who is the wife of a former Irish Ambassador to Australia, has been a terrific hit in England, but until recently, it was not heard on Australian radio programmes. I believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should encourage Australian writers and artists by providing incentives whereby the quota of 4.7 per cent of Australian compositions, which was provided for by the radio stations, will be increased on television. In addition to conducting competitions, it should also do a littlebit of scouting, as Burl Ives and hi? public relations man did, to find people of imagination, such as Delia Murphy, who have the ability to make Australian ballads popular. By aiming at a target for Australian compositions a little higher than has been achieved on the radio, we could make a great contribution to the development of Australian composers. I believe, as I have mentioned before, that the syndication of musical programmes has had a tremendously depressing influence on Australian composers over the years. We should strive to overcome the prejudice that, apparently, exists in Australia, against Australian music. Songs from overseas, such as the theme song from The Third Man - a haunting melody which contains only about five or six different notes - have been made popular by radio, but. Australian songs are not given prominence on the hit parades as often as they should be. The Opposition has moved this amendment to increase the minimum quota in order to jog the commission into making an effort to increase the quota of Australian composition above 4.7 per cent., which has been achieved on the radio, and so encourage Australian composers.

Question put -

That thewords proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 22

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

That, after proposed section 88, the following proposed sections be inserted: - “88AA (1.) Not less than fifty-five per centum of the transmission time of a television station (whether of the Commission or of a licensee) in any period of seven days shall be occupied by Australian programmes. “ (2.) The transmission time referred to in the last preceding sub-section does not include time occupied by the transmission of news or sporting events. “ 88AB. The Commission and licensees shall ensure that Divine Worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast or televised for adequate periods, at appropriate times, free of charge and on an equitable basis, and that no matter which is not of a religious nature is broadcast or televised by a station during any period during which Divine- Worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast or televised by that station.”.

May I state that the amendment I have moved contains two unrelated matters. It is necessary that I move the two matters at the same time, but I suggest that they be voted upon separately.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– P both matters could be debated together but voted upon separately.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have no objection to that procedure. The first amendment relates to the quota that we propose should be accorded Australian programmes on television stations. We suggest it should bo 55 per cent. Senator Scott, in another context, directed attention to what a commercial broadcaster said about inconsistency when he claimed that the Government had provided no quota for television but had provided a quota of 5 per cent, in the case of broadcasting stations. I am in the position of taking up that same theme and pointing out that the Government has accepted a quota of 5 per cent, of Australian productions in radio but, apparently, is about to resist any suggestion of a quota being established for Australian programmes on television.

Senator Scott:

– It was passed by the federation.

Senator McKENNA:

– I realize that, but the honorable senator quoted it with approval and directed attention by way of complaint that the Government was inconsistent ; and I am adopting his argument and words.

Senator Scott:

– -It must be right.

Senator McKENNA:

– It must be right. I point out that there will be an inconsistency unless the committee is prepared to accept a quota in this instance. It may be asked from where we get 55 per cent. That is the proposal of the Actors and Announcers Equity of Australia, and it is supported by the trade union movement after full consideration. I add my own comment that it is a very modest quota.

I have before me a letter written by Mr. Gordon Sanderson, the general secretary of the British Actors Equity Association, written on the 6th January of this year to the Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia. I shall read a brief extract from the letter -

We have reached an agreement with the Independent Television Authority-

That is of Great Britain - limiting foreign film material to seven hours per week out of a transmission time of 50 hours.

Senator Scott:

– Limiting it to seven hours ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. The letter continues - limiting foreign film material to seven hours ner week out of a transmission time of 50 hours. Four hours of the seven may be spread over the peak period after seven p.zn. in the evening.

The provision in the English act is that there must be that proper proportion in favour of British productions; and by agreement between the authority and those concerned with British productions, a percentage of 86 is fixed. That is what seven hours out of 50 leaves. If that can be accomplished in Great Britain, surely 55 per cent, in Australia would be a very modest quota. A senator who quoted 20 per cent, as an appropriate allotment for Australian artists surprised me because I consider that is altogether too low. I desire to place before the Senate information I have received from a. member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In the recent period of twelve months, out of 4,000 live presentations by the commission, only 39 of the actors were not residents of Australia. If the Australian Broadcasting Commission can achieve that high percentage of Australian artists in live presentations why should not a percentage of 55 of Australian-produced programmes be prescribed for television?

Senator Anderson:

– As the clause stands the proportion could be well in excess of 55 per cent. The words of the clause are, “ as far as possible “.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is a matter for determination by individual licensees and it could be a matter for disputation between a licensee and the board. It is not a matter that could be resolved with accuracy by a court. One licensee may feel that 20 per cent, is as far as he can go, whilst another may go to 80 per cent. In order to have certainty it is essential to provide a minimum if we are to protect Australian artists.

What we fear will happen is that there will be a flood of foreign material into this country to the exclusion of Australian performances. I have information which I believe to be completely reliable. I have heard it from those who are already in the field. When they have sought American and foreign programmes and have wanted to be selective about the programmes they wished to purchase, they have been told that they must buy a block lot or a book of films. They get a heterogeneous collection, some very poor productions, including perhaps some old Charlie Chaplin films of the most ancient vintage. They have to accept those films in order to obtain some of the mort recent productions. Scattered through their purchase is a collection of all conceivable kinds of programme and presentations. They are flooding in and stacking up at the present time. Indeed, we have had a discussion on the dollars being allocated to television companies for the purpose of buying overseas material.

I believe that the evil to be guarded against in fixing the quota is an uncontrolled flood of miscellaneous programmes from abroad. If the only barrier erected against it is a statement to the television authorities that as far as possible they should use Australian productions, that is a good pious expression, but it lacks definition and does not give the protection to Australian artists that they are entitled to expect. There will be an abdication of authority on the part of the committee, and the Government itself, unless some minimum is fixed. If that is not done we will see that flood of imported cheap, and very often nasty, film matter filling the television screens to the exclusion of films and material prepared by Australian artists. For that reason, I commend the first amendment to the committee.

With regard to the second matter which concerns the televising of religious material, there was contained in the old act a provision that cast an obligation on the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That appears in the old section 6 (rc). The board was particularly enjoined to follow certain actions, to this effect -

The Board shall in particular ensure that divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast for adequate periods and at proper times and that no matter which is not of a religious nature is broadcast by a station during any period during which divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast by that station.

There wa3 an obligation cast on the board to see that that was done, and I now desire to impress the fact on honorable senators that this provision is expressly repealed by the bill now before the Senate. The board has no obligation in the matter at all, and the new bill casts no obligation on the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the matter of broadcasting religious matter, and in relation to commercial broadcasting and television stations it merely says in the new section 103 to be found on page 39 of the memorandum -

A licensee shall broadcast or televise through ti is station divine worship or other matters of a religious nature during such periods as the Board determines.

The proposition that we affirm is that there are certain fundamental matters essential to the life of the community. If we lack spiritually, we have nothing, and that side of man should be catered for. [ pay to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the commercial broadcasting stations the tribute that they have readily met the proper requirements of the people by broadcasting divine worship and religious matter at proper hours and for adequate periods. “We have no complaint about their performance, and if that is so, then there can be no objection to imposing a clear obligation upon them now that we are about to enter the new field of television. The broadcasting stations have behaved in an excellent fashion, and I have not heard any complaint about their broadcasting of religious matter and services. We propose that for adequate periods and at appropriate times they should transmit religious matter free of charge, and continue to do what they are doing at present. We are primarily laying down a principle for the new field of television, and I commend the amendment to the committee as a desirable amendment.

Senator MCCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I know the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission very well, and it is one that has been worked out by friendly agreement with all the bodies concerned. Why compel people to do what they are doing willingly ? I find this mania for compulsion that possesses some people, one of the greatest evils of our modern times. The basis for any kind of compulsion under our Constitution must be very thin in this regard. If honorable members read section 116 of the Constitution, they will see that the only thing laid down about religion is to the effect that the Constitution completely prohibits the establishment or the forbidding of any form of religious service, or the imposition of any kind of religious test.

I believe that we may be stirring up something dangerous if we attempt to put into statutory form a compulsion to do something that is being done already by the free and willing co-operation of people. Leave the Australian Broadcasting Commission alone. I believe that no institution has been set up in recent years that has done so much good for this country as that commission. I do not listen very much to commercial broadcasting stations because I usually listen to the national stations, but I have no fault to find with those commercial stations that I do listen to in New South Wales. I believe that we shall be setting up a dangerous precedent if we introduce the compulsions suggested in the amendment in a field that is completely foreign to the Australian temperament, and absolutely unnecessary.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

. - The amendment moved by Senator McKenna was to the effect that not less than 55 per cent, of the transmission time of a television station, whether run by the Australian Broadcasting Commission or by a licensee, in any period of seven days, shall be occupied by Australian programmes. I suggest that that is a little premature. Clause 49 of the bill, which repeals sections 88 to 93 inclusive of the principal act, reads, inter aiia-

  1. – (1.) The Commission and licensees shall, as far as possible, use the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes.

Senator McKenna has stated that English television stations use a little more than 80 per cent, of British productions. But, because Great Britain has had television for a number of years, and has produced programmes which are 80 per cent. British, there is no reason why Australia, which is just starting off and has nothing like the artists available that England has, should adopt a similar practice. That would be like saying to the manufacturer of Holden cars when they first started off that they should turn out about 1,000 cars a week. When they began they did not know the capacity of the plant. Although perhaps it has been designed to produce 1,000 vehicles, they did not know its actual capacity until it had gone into production. The same thing may be said about television, because we do not know its capacity as yet. The Parliament sits often throughout the year, and if we find that Australians are not receiving the treatment that they are entitled to, then we can rectify the position. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better not to adopt the proposed amendment at this particular time, but to wait and see how television affects the Australian people after it has started off in this country.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I support the amendment because I object to a wait-and-see policy. There is only one thing about this amendment that worries me, and that is that the minimum standard may become the maximum. However, we must have a minimum in order to protect our Australian authors and artists, particularly when we realize that we are not asking for standards to be lowered. We have Australian writers and actors and so on, who are at present in the top bracket. A recent survey of the literary field showed that Australian writers were in the top bracket, and many had reached a very secure place in literary fame. That applies also to script writers, artists and musicians. It would be a poor lookout if Australian standards of education and culture could not attain the level of some radio programmes which feature overseas artists. I wonder sometimes why people are paid to make the queer noises that can be heard on the radio. Often we are informed that the artists are highly paid overseas entertainers. We must take a stand if we are to give support to those Australians who have ability, and only lack opportunities and encouragement. We should see that their rights are preserved in television.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I should like to address myself to a different aspect of the amendment. The setting of a quota for Australian artists and productions is important. That is shown by our experience of the effect of American films upon the speech of young Australians. After two hours’ attendance at a picture show, they display a marked change of tone in their pronunciation in many cases. We have boasted that we are 95 per cent. British as a nation, and we should protect our Australian way of speech.

Senator Scott:

– That i3 covered in the bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, I do not agree. Television will have a marked impact upon the speech of Australian children, particularly when it is combined with American comics and canned music. If American films are shown on television in Australia for more than twenty hours of the 40 hours allotted to television each week, they could have a marked effect upon the impressionable minds of children, and we know that’ children are fascinated by television in other countries. Australian children will be just as interested.

Senator Scott:

– How does the Opposition substantiate its claim to reserve 5’5 per cent, of the programmes for. Australian productions?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Last Tuesday, a meeting of Actors Equity of Australia was held in Sydney, and was attended by 340 members who are engaged in radio work. They decided unanimously to press for a quota of 55 per cent. That is one of my authorities.

Senator Scott:

– Would they be biased ?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, except that they have the interests of Australia at heart and, being experienced actors, they are trying to protect their future employment. We should be helping them to do that, too.

Senator Kendall:

– If they are good enough, they will be employed.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That might be ‘ so, but we have seen verbal agreements made and broken before. We would like to have a guarantee for this important section of the Australian community. Apparently, Senator Scott does not realize how much television film is already stacked in Australia awaiting the introduction of television. A television programme is very expensive. The films are syndicated and distributed. Motion pictures shown in theatres are presented to a different audience each night, but a television show covers all the viewers in a district at one showing, and the programme cannot be shown again from that station. It has to be taken elsewhere. It will not be long before the supply of films will have been seen by most Australian viewers. “ Unless we establish a quota for Australian productions, there will be pressure to accept American films, and that will introduce the American accent to more Australians. After a Saturday afternoon matinee, one hears Australian children shouting, “ scram “ and other American slang. I believe it is important that we should apply our thoughts to this aspect of television.

When I first went overseas, somebody asked whether I was a Cockney. Evidently I speak with an accent similar to the Cockneys. I asked how my voice sounded to Americans. They said that I sounded as if I would say, “I wash my fyce in a bysin “. We have developed an Australian way of pronouncing English. Once, I heard Senator George Rankin speak of “ imitation English johnnies who speak with a plum in their mouths “. I do not think we should have too much of that accent cither, and we should ensure that American films do not have too much effect on Australian voices.

If we set a quota for Australian productions, we shall preserve a percentage of available employment on television for’ Australian artists. That is of great importance. It would meet the wishes of the 340 members of Actors Equity - and they are from only one State - who met in Sydney recently. The quota of 55 ner cent, which has been sought by Actors Equity is reasonable. In England, 87 per cent, of television time is reserved for British voices and British artists. This would mean devoting 23 hours a week on the three commercial stations and on the two national stations to Australian artists.

Senator Scott:

– Has the honorable senator any authority other than the Actors Equity of Australia for this 55 per cent.?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I cannot say that I have, except that the 55 per cent, is just a little over half the time.

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

– It represents the majority of the time.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– And that 55 per cent, should be the minimum proportion of time that we should allocate to Australian artists. I think the amendment is very reasonable, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– At the outset, I should like to put it on record that it is the firm policy of the Government that television programmes should be predominantly Australian in character, and that the Government expects that stations will afford the maximum practicable degree of employment to Australians in the production and presentation of programmes. The PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) has informed the licensees that before he will approve of a service being commenced he must be satisfied of their intention to fulfil the obligation which will be imposed upon them by proposed section 88 to use the services of Australians as far as possible. Moreover, after they have commenced service their programmes will be kept under constant scrutiny for the purpose of ascertaining the extent to which the services of Australians are being used.

The question of adopting a quota system, which is being pursued by the Opposition is, the Government believes, not only impracticable at this stage but also might have the result of seriously retarding the development of television services in the Commonwealth. This matter, honorable senators will recall, was the subject of inquiry by the Royal Commission on Television and, subsequently, by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board during its inquiries into applications for the grant of licences for commercial television stations. In its report, the royal commission said -

It would not be practicable at present, before any actual experience has been gained as to the amount of talent available, or its capacity to provide a good standard of programmes, for any authority to lay down quotas for the Australian content of television programmes.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board concurred in that view and said it was desirable - that more experience should be gained and more knowledge obtained as to the availability of programme material before any decision is made on the subject of quotas.

Might I say at this stage that in no country in the world where television services are operating has any attempt been made to lay down in legislation a quota, system with respect to the employment of local artists, notwithstanding the fact that they, like ourselves, have had the fundamental desire to make use of local material. The Leader of the Opposition said that in England the time allotted to British talent was 86 per cent., but the British Television Act, which was passed in 1954, some twenty years after the establishment of television in that country, merely prescribed that the Independent Television Authority should ensure that “ proper proportions of the recorded and other matter included in the programmes are of British origin and of British performance”. I understand that subsequent negotiations between the Independent Television Authority, the programme contractors and the trade unions have led to the making of a satisfactory agreement with respect to the employment of local artists.

I should like honorable senators to realize that it was only after twenty years that they came to this agreement. There is nothing to prevent the Actors Equity of Australia coming to some agreement with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or the governing authority on the proportion of time to be allocated to Australian artists. No one is in a position to say, before television begins to operate in this country, that we should have 25 per cent., 20 per cent, or any fixed proportion of time allotted for local talent. Every other country that has television had to go through the teething stages before it could decide what the percentage in that respect should be. Even after twenty years of television in England, no statutory quota has been allotted to local talent. There, the allocation is made simply under an agreement between the trade unions, the programme contractors and the Independent Television Authority. A similar agreement can be arrived at in this country after we have got television going and when we are in a position to see whether it is possible to provide for a particular percentage.

The Canadian Royal Commission on the Arts, Letters and Sciences, in its report for the year 1951 with respect to the Canadian content in television pro- ‘ grammes, did no more than state, at page 304 -

As with radio, the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should endeavour at once to import the best programmes from abroad, while developing, so far as possible. Canadian talent in Canadian programmes.

Although it is prescribed in the Canadian Broadcasting Act 1936, which governs also the operation of television stations in the Dominion, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may make regulations to promote and ensure the greater use of Canadian talent by corporation and private stations, no action has been taken to make any such regulations. In both the United Kingdom and Canada, substantially the same procedure has been adopted as we propose in this bill.

I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government will be any less successful than the British and Canadian Governments in ensuring that our television services provide adequate opportunities for Australian artists. This is a matter upon which both sides of the Senate are in agreement in principle, but we believe, with the British and Canadian Governments, that it is neither necessary, nor indeed desirable, to lay down quotas in this respect for this infant industry. There is already evidence, apart from what the licensees themselves do, of activity on the part of other organizations to produce Australian programmes for television, and, indeed, a considerable amount of money has already been invested in such ventures. The amendment proposed by the Opposition calls for adequate safeguards against the flooding of Australian television programmes with low-grade syndicated productions.

The Government will not tolerate lowgrade productions on Australian television stations wherever they may be produced ; but, surely, no one will suggest that we should deny the Australian people the enjoyment of some of the admittedly excellent programmes of different characters which can be obtained from overseas sources. As I have mentioned, a Canadian royal commission recommended that good programmes should be imported into Canada from abroad. The fact that the Government has placed a restriction on the use of overseas exchange for the purchase of programmes in itself places a limit on the amount of overseas film material which may be used. The Government sees in television a great opportunity for the development of Australian culture, and tremendous possibilities for Australian artists and writers. We do not share the pessimism of the Opposition that these objectives will not be realized if we do not provide in this bill for a quota system which, in th present state of affairs, would be largely a matter of guesswork. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to reply to some of the statements made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). T think we should be able to profit by all the experience that has been gained in England and Canada. We should be able to insist at the outset upon some safeguard for Australian artists. I am sure that those honorable senators who listen to various Australian radio programmes will agree that one of the most popular of them all is “ My Song Goes Round the World “ from one of our national stations. In that programme live artists are employed, and although it may not appeal to lovers of opera as being one of great cultural value, it is indeed a popular and excellent programme. It is a programme which gives employment to Australian artists and reaches to all corners of the world. It is most refreshing at times, after bearing some of the songs as recorded overseas, and murdered by the artists who sing them, to hear them sung by Australian artists with true musical appreciation. The same could be said about radio plays. The only time I have in which to listen to a radio play is on a Sunday night, and it is a delight to hear a full-length play of an hour performed by Australian artists. The production is vastly superior to that of the syndicated plays performed overseas.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has done an excellent job in encouraging good artists to come to Australia and give the Australian people the benefit of their skill, but Australia has also done a good job in the same field and has exported many good artists abroad. The English programme Take It from Here has Australians as its principal artists. An unfortunate complex seems to have developed in Australia that because an artist is an Australian his standard of performance cannot be Ers class. I know Australian artists who have gone overseas, and have changed their names to obtain engagements for concert performances. When they have returned to Australia they have been given an enthusiastic reception. One of the best pianists in the world is Eileen Joyce, a confrere of mine and a Western Australian. But it matters not whether an artist is a. Western Australian, a Tasmanian or a native of any of our States - the principal consideration is that he or she is an Australian. Eileen Joyce has been a wonderful ambassador for Australia in the field of music.

I hope that this debate will not take an insular turn, but that we shall do everything possible to ensure that Australian artists receive fair treatment when television is established. I sincerely hope that, when television programmes are broadcast, those who receive them will not have to endure what radio listeners are now given - the terrific “ blah-blah “ which comes from the United States of America and other countries. It is certainly not in keeping with the standards which the Australian Broadcasting Commission has set up.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

.- In supporting the amendment, I suggest to the stereotyped minds of honorable senators on the Government side that any fool can follow a beaten track.

Senator Scott:

– Does the honorable senator want to follow the 55 per cent, track?

Senator CAMERON:

Senator Scott has only a one-track mind, and like water is tends to gravitate below the surface. It has been evident to me during this debate that honorable senators are expected by the Government to follow a beaten track and become mere dependants and mental followers of people overseas, either American or English. That attitude must be discouraged in every way possible by indulging in that very desirable habit of independent thinking, and of trying to invent or discover a new way of life for ourselves. I regret that even to-day many Australians regard themselves as mere colonials; They repeat the songs that our forefathers in the Old Country sang, and play the music which they played. The moment that any one attempts to strike a note which is peculiarly and originally Australian, they protest that it must be discouraged. That is exactly what the Minister has suggested. He has said, “ They have done this in Canada and in. America, and what is good enough for them is good enough for us “, and honorable senators on the Government side acquiesce.

My attitude is that we should encourage Australians, to the very best of our ability, to rely more on their own initiative and judgment and to do things which are an improvement on what is done overseas. But, according to the speech prepared for the Minister, we are expected to go along the beaten track. I, for one, refuse to do that. I have had to do things on many occasions under duress.

Senator McCallum referred to acting under compulsion. I remind the honorable senator that all things are done under compulsion. There is no such thing as an act which is purely voluntary. All nature’s laws are compulsory. We either obey natural laws or suffer the consequences. The honorable senator talked also about voluntary action. Most socalled voluntary acting is a mere cover for duress. This theoretical “kissinthering “ described by Senator McCallum would sound very nice if it were set to music, but there is no substance in it.

If Senator McCallum considered the position dialectically as well as politically, socially and theoretically he would come to the conclusion that there are two forces operating in society - positive and negative. I object to being purely negative or purely positive. In this instance, I am asked to be purely positive and fall into line with what is done overseas - to agree to a course in keeping with what is set out in a Canadian act of parliament or recommended here by a royal commission of inquiry. I am not allowed to place my sacriligeous hand upon the cherished, sacred ideals of the royal commission, or of those who sit in authority. As one who does not acquiesce in his own subjection to the same extent as do honorable senators opposite, I contend that we should do justice to the people we represent and in every way possible strengthen and encourage their initiative for invention and discovery, independently of what is done overseas or anywhere else. Thai is the purpose of the amendment. It is a challenge to Australians to do better, or else take a back seat.

To date, I am happy to say that Australians, both imported and native-born, like myself, have struck an independent note; otherwise we should not have government such as we have it to-day. We would acquiesce and accept government from overseas. But because we have struck an independent note, not only in the field of art, but also in other directions, it is possible for us to be where we are to-day. When we come to television and broadcasting, however, we are asked to sing the same old songs that they sing overseas, and to use the same films that they use in other countries. I suggest that if honorable senators could see some of the films that are used on television in America, and which will be unloaded here, they would be horrified. For example, on television for teenagers there was a film which showed a woman being strangled and then burnt in a furnace. Are we going to show that kind of thing here? What kind of television programmes shall we have? I suggest that they will be exactly what the mental superiors of honorable senators opposite want us to have, because honorable senators opposite have no capacity for independent thinking and no initiative. On those grounds, 1 support the amendment.

Senator COOKE (Western Australia) [9.12J. - I also support the amendment. It seems to me that the objection of the Government and its advisers to the stipulation of a 55 per cent, minimum in regard to the employment of Australians in television programmes is based largely on the fact that the adoption of that scheme would place responsibility on the commission, and on broadcasting stations and television licensees, to encourage and look for Australian talent. I agree that, in the initial stages of television, there will be some difficulty in this matter, and I acknowledge that if the television authorities were to select some of the world’s best talent for the early programmes the result might be better, more attractive and more varied programmes, but we must encourage the employment of Australian artists.

In Western Australia, the employment of local artists declined as broadcasting became better established, for the simple reason that the local orchestras were displaced by canned music. Many Western Australian orchestras went right out of existence because they were not required in theatres and broadcasting studios. I suppose that the Western Australian symphony orchestra was comparable with any orchestra of its kind in Australia, but it went out of existence, too. In that State we had a variety of choirs and choral societies with talent that was accepted at theatres and which drew good houses, but since broadcasting came on the scene, those organizations, and also individual singers, have found that there is no room for them because they are not at the seat of administration of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

It is idle to say that those Western Australian people have not made out a case for themselves. They have repeatedly done so, not only to the commission, but also to Parliament, but it is useless to present a case for the Australian artist when relevant legislation is not being discussed. People are just not interested. It is sheer waste of time. Unless we make provision in this bill regarding the use of a reasonable proportion of Australian talent, the material that is available in quantity will be accepted and used. Commercial radio stations are constantly seeking talent 1o use in their amateur programmes, but nevertheless, people like Wendy Nash, a Western Australian girl, try their hardest, to get recognition without avail. In the case of Wendy Nash, it was mainly because of the action of the Boy Scoi.it movement and other interested organizations and individuals that she was able to give concerts at various places and so obtain money to further her studies overseas; and because she was an excellent artist she became well known. But she received no assistance from any government instrumentality.

Senator Seward:

– Who was that?

Senator COOKE:

– Wendy Nash, a Western Australian pianist. The honorable senator would not know her, but if” he looks at her record he will find how hard she tried to win recognition. There are hundreds of artists in the same position. Because of the attitude of this Government, artistic talent in Australia is being neglected.

People believe that they are doing the right thing by having their children taught music, in order to give them appreciation of music, and so they are. Bui of course very few of those children will have the opportunity to become musical artists unless we adopt a different approach towards the employment of Australians in broadcasting and television programmes. We all know that Australians go overseas for training, gain recognition, and come back here famous, but it is very difficult for young artists in this country to get a kick-off. I believe that the adoption of this amendment would not only give established artists the chance to make more frequent appearances, but also it would place on the people who will be directing television and broadcasting in the future the onus to seek out Australian talent and develop it.

Senator McKENNA ( Tasmania -

Leader of the Opposition) [9.16]. - In reply to some of the debate, I want to commend to the committee the suggestion that has just come from Senator Cooke, that it is not enough to say to the bodies in the television field, “As far as possible, use Australian artists”. If we want them to be active in that matter,, we must tell them now that they have to have a definite percentage of programmes of an Australian character. What will flow from that? They have from now until November. They will immediately begin by sending prospective Australian performers to countries where television is in operation. If the amendment is adopted, they will be ready and will make an effort, but if there is no clear direction to them, they will be lackadaisical and will not bestir themselves. We know of the flood of televised material that is ready to be loosed on the Australian community from abroad.

Senator McCallum, in relation to religious broadcasts, expressed his abhorrence of compulsion, as proposed by the amendment of the Opposition regarding religious broadcasts. The honorable senator is obviously most inconsistent, because at the same time that he is saying that lie is approving the inclusion in this bill nf a clause which reads -

A licensee shall broadcast-

There is the compulsion - >r televise from his station Divine Worship ir other matter of a religious nature during such periods as the Board determines and, if the Hoard so directs, shall do so without charge.

So, I say to the honorable senator that whilst he professes to abhor compulsion of any kind, pursuant to that clause he is approving compulsion, in respect of commercial licensees only, both in broadfasting and television.

Senator McCALLUM:

– We have not yet passed that clause.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, we have not come to it.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I shall have something to say when we come to it.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but I want to say something in answer to the honorable senator’s objection to compulsion. As I have said, the part of clause 40 that I have read provides for compulsion, so that in actual fact the Government is affirming the principle of compulsion. It proposes to let the board applY it- My criticism of that clause is that it makes a very unfair distinction against commercial licensees by applying compulsion to them and not to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. T should like some member of the Government to justify that distinction. If it is good enough for the commercial licensees, it is good enough to impose a similar obligation upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Scott advocates a policy of wait and see. 1 ask him to consider this : We know that there will be a flood of foreign film matter in this country ready to be put over television. The Government has approved of the expenditure of thousands of dollars on the importation of these films. I know from talking to those in the field, and to members of the commission, that a vast quantity of this material is available, and that it is a very mixed grill - as I have already indicated to the committee. In these circumstances, we consider it extremely desirable that a minimum quota should lie specified. If the Government sets a minimum standard for the broadcasting of Australian music, it should, to be consistent, set a minimum quota of Australian, programmes that must be shown on television.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator McKenna’s amendment - proposed section 88 aa) be inserted.

The committee divided. (“The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 21

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator McKenna’s amendment - proposed section88ab) be inserted..

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

. - I move -

That proposed section 88a be left out and. the following proposed section inserted ins place thereof: - “ 88a. The Commission or the holder of a licence for a commercial television station shall not televise, cither directly, or by means of any recording, film or other material or device or otherwise, the whole or a part of a sporting event or other entertainment held in Australia, after the commencement of this section, in a place to which a charge is made for admission, if the images of the sporting event or other entertainmnent originate from the use of equipment outside that place.”.

This amendment stems from the desire of sporting bodies throughout the Commonwealth to be protected against thepossibility that their interests may be detrimentally affected if the Australian Broadcasting Commission or thelicensees of commercial television stations were to televise sporting eventswithout the permission of the promoters. Proposed section88a as drafted was inserted in another place, by way of amendment, to provide that the commission or a licensee of a television station should not televise a sporting event or other entertainment held in a place to which a charge is made for admission, except in accordance with an agreement with the promoters of the sporting event or other entertainment. The Government accepted that amendment and alsoproposed a further amendment, by which a provision was inserted in clause 59 for the making of regulations for the settlement of disputes which might arise in connexion with agreements contemplated under proposed section 88a.

In the course of the debate on this matter in another place; the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) said that he had very great hopes that discussions which were to take place at his suggestion between the sporting bodies, the commission and the licensees of television stations, would result in arrangements being made which would produce the result that there would never be any need to exercise the regulation power which was to be provided for by clause 59. Representatives of sporting bodies, the commission and the four licensees of television stations took part in discussions, at the conclusion of which they appointed seven of their number to wait on the Postmaster-General for the purpose of requesting that the Government should agree -

  1. toamend section 8Sa to prohibit the televising of sporting events and other entertainments, held in a place to which a charge is made for admission, by means of equipment used outside any such place, and
  2. to omit the provisions in clause 59for the settlement of disputes.

The commission and the licensees stated that, as they had no intention. of televising events from outside the places in which they were held, they supported this proposal ; and all parties agreed that arrangements for the televising of such events from within such places should be the subject of negotiation. Discussions between the parties will be continued, and they have assured the Postmaster-General of their intention to fix conditions for the televising of sporting events by private treaty. In short, what the representatives of all the parties asked the Government to do was to prohibit the use of television cameras outside any place where a sporting event was being held and a charge for admission made, and to leave the matter of the use of equipment inside such a place to negotiations between the promoters and the organization wishing to televise the event.

The Postmaster-General submitted the request to the Government, which agreed to amend the bill in the manner suggested in the amendments which I have circulated, because it felt that it would he conducive to a reasonable settlement of any disagreements which may arise. The effect of the amendment is to prohibit the ase of equipment outside the place where an event is being held and a charge made, for the purpose of televising the event. The sporting bodies have expressed their satisfaction with this proposal and have informed the Postmaster-General that the action which is being taken meets their requirements. They, of course, take the view that the use of equipment within their grounds can be arranged only by agreement with them, and the televisors accept that position.

It is, I think, a matter for gratification that this thorny problem has been settled on a. basis which is endorsed by all the parties. The Postmaster-General has informed them of the Government’s intention to amend the bill along the lines indicated in my amendments, and he has received the following telegram in reply from Mr. Justice Dovey, Chairman of the Australian Jockey Club, who led the deputation -

Thank you for your telegram re television amendment. The sporting bodies throughout Australia sincerely appreciate the courtesy and consideration of the Government in this matter.

It has been suggested that a provision similar to that contained in the amendment should be inserted in the legislation in relation to the broadcasting of sporting events, and the representatives of che sporting bodies who say the PostmasterGeneral asked that consideration be given to the matter. The Government has considered this question very carefully, but as the position in respect of broadcasting is at present satisfactory, it does not propose to adopt the suggestion at the present time. It will, however, keep this question under observation and will review the matter if the need arises. The sporting bodies have been informed accordingly.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– I can agree, on behalf of the Opposition, with the first portion of the amendment moved by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). The Opposition agrees to the leaving out of proposed section 88a to enable the Minister’s amendment to become effective. But, when we have reached that stage I shall propose to the committee a further amendment of the Minister’s proposal. I can inform him in advance that the Opposition agrees to his amendment No. 3 dealing with the regulation-making power of the board and the power it has, more or less, to compel agreement or provide machinery for agreement in the event of disagreement between sporting bodies and televising authorities.

The Opposition sees a defect that is common to both the clause which was inserted in the bill in the House of Representatives and in the amendment which has just been moved. The first point I make is that they both draw an invidious distinction between broadcasting stations and television stations. If honorable senators refer to clause 88a they will find that it concerns itself solely with the televising of events.If they refer also to the amendmentwhich has been circulated by the Minister they will find that that is confined in the same way to television only. The Opposition puts forward the view that if proper protection is to be afforded to sporting bodies they should be protected equally against contemporaneous broadcasts and televising.

Coming directly to the Government’s amendment, the Opposition offers the criticism that it affords no protection whatsoever to sporting bodies against a broadcast contemporaneously with the event and it gives only a half-baked protection to them against television authorities. 1 put two propositions to the committee, and I assure honorable senators that, they are not fantastic. It is extraordinary when dealing with the television of sport ing events to provide that they shall not be televised from outside the place where the sporting event is taking place. There are two ways in which, without breaching that particular clause, television of sporting events in an open arena could take place. It is not fantastic to suggest that a helicopter might sit over the arena with television cameras, and televise from there. The helicopter would not lie outside the place where the event is taking place. It is open to argument that if a television authority erected a tower outside a place where sporting events are taking place on an arena and projected a long arm over the arena, that, would be outside the place. Would it br outside the place with any certainty?

Senator Wright:

– I think so.

Senator McKENNA:

– Supposing the operative part of the televising apparatus - that is the camera - is hung over the arena on a long arm from a tower outside the ground.

Senator Mattner:

– We accept that as inside.

Senator McKENNA:

– We are talking about television at the moment. Does Senator Mattner understand that neither the clause nor the amendment moved, b.v the Minister touches broadcasting at all. May I put that aside for the moment.

Senator Mattner:

– They cannot televise inside the ground at all.

Senator McKENNA:

– If the honorable senator will read the amendment, he will find there a provision that television shall not take place from the use of equipment outside where a sporting event is going on. I suggest that if a helicopter sits over an arena with a television camera and television apparatus, it would not be televising from the use of equipment outside the arena.

Senator Mattner:

– Then where is it televising from?

Senator McKENNA:

– From inside.

Senator Scott:

– The honorable senator is getting technical now.

Senator McKENNA:

– Not at all. According to the legal concept of land and place, it includes the air above the land and the land down into the earth for any depth, and that part of the land or i lace open to the air would include the air above the land.

Senator Mattner:

– No one dispute? that.

Senator McKENNA:

– Now we are progressing.

Senator Mattner:

– An operator could not televise unless he had permission.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am prepared to concede this because I understand the honorable senator’s difficulty. The matter that we are considering is a prohibition upon televising an event, without consent, with equipment outside the place. I agree that if a man brought a television camera on to an arena and climbed into one of the stands and used it there he would be breaching the provisions.

Senator Wright:

– Let us hear the argument of Senator McKenna.

Senator McKENNA:

– I believe this particular clause could be effectively policed by a sporting body against television cameras and apparatus of very large dimensions being brought into the ground - I understand that it would take trucks to bring such equipment in - and operated inside the ground without consent. However, it would not be effective against a helicopter sitting over the arena and televising from there.’ It would not protect a sporting body against a practice such as that.

Senator Gorton:

– Is that a definite statement or a submission?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a submission; it is my opinion. I suggest also that if a tower were erected outside the ground, and an arm containing television apparatus ‘were projected over the arena, that also would not constitute an offence under this section. The point that I am making is that the protection given by the Government, which apparently the sporting bodies are satisfied with and which the Minister is prepared to include, is not a complete protection. There may be methods by which the intention of the Government and sporting bodies could be defeated.

I repeat that the provision will give no protection whatsoever against contemporaneous broadcasting of proceedings, because that is a matter of great physical ease. Why, then, should there be a prohibition against television apparatus televising contemporaneously when there is no prohibition against broadcasting. If one is to be prohibited without consent, then the other should also be prohibited. It is no answer to that proposition to say that no broadcasting station is doing such a thing at the moment, because this measure purports to be a code that we are laying down for the future, and if anything is to be done by way of prohibition to protect sporting bodies, then let us lay down the prohibition to place the protection beyond doubt. I have already circulated a separate amendment which, if passed, will replace the present clause and the Minister’s amendment. My amendment will read this way - 88a. The Commission or a licensee - and that term “ licensee “ takes in broadcasting and television licensees - shall not -

  1. broadcast a contemporaneous description of the whole or a part of any sporting event or other entertainment held in Australia, after the commencement of this section, in a place to which a charge is made for admission; or
  2. televise, either directly or by means of any recording, film or any other material or device, the whole or any part of such a sporting event or other entertainment, except in accordance with an agreement with the promoter of the sporting event or other entertainment.

I cannot think of a more watertight protection than that for the broadcasting or televising of a sporting event. That makes a complete prohibition whether from inside or outside, or on the edges or anywhere else, without the consent of the promoter. That is clear-cut and it achieves the object, if that is the object at which this committee and the Government are aiming. If I am correct in assuming that sporting bodies are satisfied with the Minister’s amendment, then I am absolutely amazed that they should be contented with it.

Another aspect of this matter, is the most important aspect of public interest, which is involved apart from agreement between sporting bodies and radio and television authorities. It can be argued that nobody promoting an event such as the Olympic Games should be in a position arbitrarily to refuse to allow the proceedings to be broadcast or televised. That is a situation where all Australians who have television sets have paid large sums for their sets and have paid large fees . so that the Government can provide programmes. They will expect that a public spectacle like the Olympic Games will be televised. I admit quite frankly that the proposition before us now offers no protection to the public in that matter. My own impression is that that is one thing that might safely be left alone for the time being, because I imagine that the class of items that will fall into that category of national interest during the course of the year would not represent ½ per cent, of the total televised or broadcast matter. Ninety-nine per cent, of the promoters of that½ per cent, would be only too eager to allow the broadcasting of events by television. There would be agreement upon the facilities that would be provided. If that were not done, there would be a tremendous public outcry. While we propound a code, the Opposition is not suggesting that we should dot every I and cross every T at this stage. The Opposition will vote for the omission of the words proposed to be omitted. We believe that the proposal would be effective only as applying to television. We will vote against the Minister’s amendment, having first proposed an amendment of his amendment, to provide the complete protection that I am suggesting to the committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– Before the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) moves his amendment, I wish to suggest another course. It is obvious from the history of this proposed section that it is one of some difficulty and also of some significance. The original proposal of the Government has been abandoned and an amendment was accepted in the House of Representatives. We in this chamber have now resolved to omit the proposed section. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) proposes to replace it with a new section that he has read to the committee, and Senator McKenna has some amendment to it to submit. In the first place, the Government’s proposed section 88a dealt with the television of a sporting event only. It did not deal with broadcasting, but in dealing with television of a sporting event, it referred to television from within a ground as well as by a pirate televiser outside. The Government saw that if we are to create rights -in a sporting body to insist upon contracts, it would be fair and just to provide for arbitration if there were a deadlock on the price of the session. Still, the Government has dealt only with television. It realizes the difficulty and cumbersome nature of the proposal, and Senator McKenna proposes to bring in an amendment to deal only with television pirates. They are persons who set up their apparatus outside a ground, photograph their images and transmit them.

I suggest to the Opposition that this is a. preferable approach. It needs no argument at all to show that anybody who enters a sporting fixture for which a. charge is made - whether with or without television apparatus or broadcasting apparatus - must comply with the conditions of entrance set down by the sporting body. That can be left to the spirit of sportsmanship that prevails, and has found its application to the situation in relation to broadcasting so far. I suggest that in confining this legislation to the pirate of sporting events, the Minister’s amendment is wise.

Then I come to the point that the Minister’s amendment still insists upon a distinction between television and broadcasting. I am unable to see the logic of insisting on that. The courts have already had to deal with the pirate broadcaster, and the common law, as expounded by the High Court of Australia, has been declared thus: If you stand on a prominence quite a distance away from the sporting event, and view what is going on and speak into a microphone, you do’ not commit any breach of the common law rules that have been evolved in ages that did not know broadcasting or television. That is all right, but we would be purblind, indeed, if we in this age, who have the advantages of these new media, did not recognize our fundamental duty to make these matters subject to the spirit of the common law. The spirit of the law would prevent a pirate from setting up apparatus and taking advantage of a sporting event to broadcast it to those who patronized that particular broadcasting medium.

I should like the Minister to explain to the committee what has persuaded him to insist upon this distinction. I have noted the telegram from Mr. Justice Dovey in the character of chairman of some jockey club, but there is great danger in relying on the view of one representative for Australia, or one representative of any State, as the mouthpiece of all sporting interests.

Secondly, I suggest that it may be that weight is being made against the application of these amendments because of some interests that have already become vested in broadcasting communications. We find it easy to deal with the new medium of television, which is not yet established, and to prohibit the piracy of sporting events, and I cannot find reason, logic or equity in distinguishing between television and broadcasting. I would be indebted to the Minister if he would argue the matter and explain why, when we take the course of prohibiting the pirate televiser, we do not, at the same time, take the course which logic requires, and prohibit the pirate broadcaster. If that line of reasoning is at all acceptable to the Opposition, I suggest that we would achieve a much more uniform piece of legislation, and one which would be effective if, instead of going on with an amendment which applied both within and without the grounds, the Minister were to accept an amendment to his amendment so that the commission shall not televise or broadcast, by means of images or speech, sporting events which originate in a ground. That will make the Minister’s amendment prohibiting piracy applicable to both televisers and broadcasters.

Before sitting down, 1 want to refer to two matters which were submitted to us by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). One was that if a televiser happened to be in a helicopter above a sports ground and transmitted from that helicopter he would not come within the Minister’s amendment. The other was that a television apparatus projected on an arm over a sports ground would not be prohibited by the Minister’s amendment. That may be so, and I am inclined to the view that it is; but we need not be concerned about those people because I submit that in each case there certainly would be a common law trespass which would be the subject-matter of an injunction by the court quite readily. I do not wish, however, to have my main argument obscured by reference to those two incidental matters. I wish them to be effaced from our reasoning, and I ask that ji broadcasting pirate be placed in the same position as a television pirate, and that we all agree to confining the amendment to that. If the Minister for Repatriation and the Leader of the Opposition can mould the Minister’s amendment in order as to do that, I submit that we shall have an improved piece of legislation.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I agree entirely with Senator “Wright’s submissions. He has ably covered the defects that I see in the Government’s amendment. I entirely agree also with the suggestion that both broadcasting and television pirates should be covered. There is a further point that T see in this matter. The sporting bodies that made representations to the Government for protection of their interests are -established organizations. They have a vested interest in the sports with which they are connected in that they own arenas -an(t sports grounds and are therefore in a position to make charges for admission to view the sports. During the period of their establishment, they enjoyed certain - concessions from both Commonwealth and State governments, and are now in a sound position. But there are other sporting organizations which have no arenas and -are not in a position to make charges for viewing events conducted by them. I refer to those which conduct such amateur sports as rowing, certain athletics, swimming and so on. They depend entirely -upon subscriptions from spectators,’ and they, too, would be adversely affected by the televising of events conducted by them because attendances would not be as great as if no televising took place. As yet, they are accorded no protection whatsoever, and I submit they should have that privilege.

In my view, the fairest way would be to provide that no sport shall be broadcast or televised without the permission of the promoters or organizers of that sport. The other day I referred to an amendment moved in another place by the honorable member for Chisholm (Mr. Kent Hughes), the subject-matter of which was the very quintessence of the case I am submitting now. For instance, some of these organizers and promoters of amateur sports go to considerable expense in bringing, perhaps, rowers from New Zealand, England and other places to compete in Australia. They have to depend upon public subscription to cover that expense. I submit that those amateur bodies have an equal claim with professional bodies for protection from piracy by either television or broadcasting organizations. This protection could be accorded by our providing that no sporting event shall be broadcast or televised without the permission of the sponsors or organizers.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I regret that Senator Scott is not present at the moment so that I may assure him I have had legal advice in relation to helicopters and so on. I hope one of his colleagues will reassure him on the matter. Acceding to Senator Wright’s request to put aside consideration of his other submissions, I should say that the amendment that I have in mind, and which ie now before the committee, is quite simple in expression and very complete in its cover. From the drafting viewpoint, if we are to concentrate all our energies on guarding sporting bodies against pirates I think it will mean the addition of a good many words to the very simple amendments proposed by the Opposition to achieve that end. Looking at my proposed sub-clause (b), I suggest that we must in the first place keep the two things separate from a drafting viewpoint. There is an element of contemporaneous happening in broadcasting that is not present in television. I take it we do not desire to prohibit a description of or reference to a sporting event long after the event has taken place. I take it that we do not desire to prohibit a discussion of the proceedings, results, and so on. It is the describing of the event at the time it happens that matters in broadcasting

In television, of course, they may simply make a film of the event and at their leisure televise that record of what they see and hear. We have to keep in mind the fact that we are compelled to separate broadcasting from television in addressing ourselves to the drafting problem. For that reason, I suggest to Senator Wright that it would not be appropriate, that indeed it would be very difficult, to amend the Minister’s amendment in a way that would give a clearcut expression to what he has in mind. I suggest to him that it might be very much better done by amending the amendment that I have circulated. I should imagine that the Minister, perhaps not having very much freedom in this chamber, as he is representing another Minister - 1 have been in a similar position myself on many occasions - will not accept my amendment. In saying that, 1 do not reproach him ; I am merely stating a fact. If we can achieve a. form of word* acceptable to Senator Wright and to the Minister, a form by which we might rake the element that Senator Wright wants out of the Minister’s amendment mid tack it on to mine, we might get a result that is acceptable all round.

Let me deal first with the television side of my draft amendment. I refer to subclause (b). It says that the commission or a licence shall not - televise, either directly or by means of any recording, film or other material or devise, the whole or any part of such a sporting event or other entertainment.

I suggest that we add to that, these words from the Minister’s amendment - if the images of the sporting event or other entertainment originate from the use nf equipment outside that place.

That would make completely clean the position about televising, exactly as the Minister wants it. That does not offend his position in the slightest degree.

Sub-clause (a) of my amendment would introduce a completely new element so far as the Minister is concerned in that we want to guard against pirating by broadcasting stations. Consequently, I have added, after the word “ admission “ the words “ through the use of equipment outside that place “. We are not there referring to images. I am aware that I have submitted this further amendment at short notice, and I suggest that, with, the concurrence of the committee, thisclause might be postponed to enable theMinister and his advisers to confer; and that, in the meantime, the committeeshould proceed to consider furtherclauses of the bill. Perhaps before that is done I might read the whole of my proposed amendment with the addition, of the words 1 now suggest. The entireamendment is as follows : -

That in clause 49, proposed section 88a beleft out and the following proposed section inserted: - “ 88a. The Commission or a licensee shall, not - ‘

broadcast a contemporaneous description of the whole or a part of anysporting event or other entertainment held in Australia, after thecommencement of this section, in a place to which a charge is madefor admission through the use of equipment outside that place; or (/<) televise either directly or by mean>>. of any recording, film or other material or device, the whole or any part of such a sporting event or other entertainment, if the images of the sporting event or other entertainment originate from theuse of equipment outside that place, except in accordance with an agreement with, the promoter of the sporting event or other entertainment.

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

.. - I wish to say something particularly directed to Senator McKenna’s proposed amendment in relation to the prohibition of piracy broadcasting. If honorablesenators will turn to clause 6 of the bill,, which is the interpretation clause, they will see in sub-section (2.) of proposed1 new section 4 this provision -

For the purposes of this Act, the Commission or the holder of a licence for a commercial television station shall be deemed totelevise matter if it or he transmits that matter, or causes or permits that matter tobe transmitted, by means of wireless telegraphy, from n television station in such a manner as to be capable of reception by atelevision receiver in the form nf images or sound or in the form of images and associated’ sound.

In other words, a person will comply with the act and will televise if he merely transmits sound. Therefore, a person operating television equipment is prohibited, in terms of the Minister’s amendment, from actually broadcasting without any transmission of images whatsoever. That is how I read that sub-section. At the same time, the person whose business it is to transmit sound is not prohibited at all. It is most extraordinary that the transmission of sound only should constitute television, and it seems to be an extremely cogent argument why the Minister should accept the amendment which is now proposed in relation to the prohibition of piracy of broadcasting.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I am prepared to confer with the PostmasterGeneral (M.r. Davidson) on this matter, but, before doing so, if Senator McKenna and Senator Wright will meet me, we might be able to remove some of the difficulties. Consequently, I suggest that progress be reported, on the understanding that the committee will resume consideration of the bill to-night.

Progress reported.

page 1173

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1956

Second Beading.

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 1076), on motion by Senator

O’sullivan -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– When the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator O’sullivan) began his second-reading speech on this measure, it was agreed that the Senate should discuss concurrently with the motion for the second reading of this bill an amendment to the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. I take it that that arrangement still stands, and that what I say on this measure will cover the associated bill.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– Apart from making some necessary provision for electorate allowances in respect of new subdivisions and some divisions with altered boundaries, the bill concerns itself with implementing, so far as legislative provision is required, the recommendations of the Richardson committee in relation to parliamentary allowances and salaries. I followed with very great interest every word of the Minister’s speech. I thought he gave a most complete exposition of the purposes of the bill and also made a very thorough justification of the proposals that the bill contains. In fact, I may say that J agreed with every word he uttered. Strictly, there is no need for me to add anything at all to what he said, but 1 propose to spend a few minutes in dealing with the bill lest it be thought thai my not talking about it was due to some lack of enthusiasm, either on my part or on the part of the Opposition, and that our support of the bill was perfunctory only. It is nothing of the kind. We give it our complete and unanimous support. We support it quite cordially, just as we agreed unanimously with the Government in the appointment of the committee of inquiry last year. i join with the Minister in expressing appreciation of the action of Sir Frank Richardson, Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Brown in functioning on this committee and bringing to it their wide experience and great abilities. I had the pleasure of giving evidence before them, and 1 do not suppose that I have ever enjoyed an experience of that kind more, because of the thoroughly informal nature of the proceedings and the most efficient way in which they got to the heart of what they wanted to know. They knew exactly where they were going.

I should like to go on record as saying that if they had accepted the recommendations that I made to them, this bill would be making far more substantial provision for members of the Parliament than it in fact does. Certainly, they do not go so far as I personally proposed to them that they should proceed, because my own feeling in relation to this matter, a feeling that I have expressed at other times in this chamber, and no doubt in different words, is that it is the greatest economy for the people of this nation to pay to the members of the Federal Parliament an amount that will attract to the service of the country the very best brains and men of the highest character. I do not think that anything that is paid to achieve that result is dear. I think that that would be the greatest economy that the country could practice.

Accordingly, if I were to voice a word of criticism at all, it would be that I think that an effort ought to be made, so far as parliamentary salaries are concerned, to fix them at a level that will help to achieve that result and put this controversial issue aside for at least ten years. It is a matter of great distaste to everybody in the Parliament to have this matter being raised every few years, finding it the subject of controversy outside the Parliament, and finding a great deal of prejudice expressed in relation to it. We recognize that, as public men, we are open to criticism. We have to be prepared to accept that, but I think that in addition to that we are somewhat in the nature of national cock-shies. Everybody considers it part of his birthright to be able to throw a brick in the general direction of his politician.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is democracy.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not contesting the right of the people to do so, although I sometimes do not enjoy the vigour with which they exercise that right. But as the commission itself has pointed out, there is a very great lack of understanding of the principles governing this matter, and also a great lack of understanding of the nature of the work of the federal parliamentarian, even in comparison with that of the State member.

After all is said and done, in this Parliament, more than in any State parliament, there are extraordinary features. The very great damage to one’s domesticity is one aspect, and another, of course, is that with the broadcasting of these proceedings one loses all one’s privacy and sense of being anonymous in the community. That is the loss of something that is really substantial, in my view. We are doomed, if we do our work properly, to eternal study, ceaseless study of all kinds of problems affecting every major aspect of life, both inside and outside Australia, and we perform our duties, I think I may safely say, in an atmosphere of conflict and tension, where the wear and tear is considerable. In other words, as we trip our way through the woods of Canberra there are cannibals among the trees, and very often when they catch us they do not even cook us; they eat us raw.

To the many difficulties and ardours of the task, I do not think there should be added that of undue financial disability. I say quite frankly, particularly in relation to the younger members of this Parliament who are married and rearing families, who are seeking to establish homes and make some provision for the future, and who, like the rest of us, are faced with utter insecurity of tenure in this particular life, that I do not know how they provide to meet their commitments, both political and domestic. I think that they are in real distress. It is my belief, particularly amongst those younger members of the Parliament with no income apart from what they draw from their parliamentary salaries and allowances, that unless some relief is granted it will be impossible for them to continue in parliamentary life. To the very few who have income apart from their parliamentary salaries, I say that they are fortunate that perhaps they are not so young and ill-placed financially as are the great bulk of the members of this Parliament.

Again, the proposals in this measure that we support are not all credits. There are debits, and pretty considerable debits. The loss of the stamp allowance of £6 a month means a debit in the accounts of members of £72 per annum. The loss of travel facilities for members and their families is a substantial matter for many members. Above all, the loss of statutory protection for a tax-free sum in relation to the electoral allowance could be a matter of very real substance. The loss of the gold pass will strike some members with a degree of real severity, particularly those who use the pass for train and tram travel throughout Australia, especially in their electorates.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is one of the worst features of it.

Senator McKENNA:

– Quite frankly, it is severe. Members do not relish those aspects of the report, but those who talk about increases rarely address their minds to the very severe debits that are implicit in the legislation.

Let me say, regarding the removal of the statutory protection for tax-free allowances, that any member of the Parliament who has not worked out the effect of taxation, once the increase operates, is due for a very rude shock. The amount of the increases, in the case of a senator, giving £600 on salary and £150 on allowance, added to the other emolument that he enjoys at the present time, will carry him into a much higher rate of tax. That, then, will pull down the whole income.

Debate interrupted.

page 1175

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMuIIin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1175

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator McKENNA:

– I venture to say, without hesitation, having worked out some examples, that if any member of the Parliament, even if he expends the whole of his electoral allowance, retains one-half of the total increase that is to be given he will be very fortunate. From that amount, which will be no more than a half and could he even less, are to be deducted the stamp allowance of £72 per annum and whatever amenities were enjoyed pursuant to the use of the gold pass and travel facilities for families. Quite frankly, I should say that far more than half of the increases that are to be given will find their way directly back into the Treasury.

I am delighted that provision has been made for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think that the failure to do that by the previous committee - the Nicholas committee - was an oversight.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It was, too.

Senator McKENNA:

– As the Minister for the Navy (Senator O’Sullivan) agrees, it was a pure oversight, and because the Government felt that it did not want to depart from the committee’s recommendations, but wanted to keep within their bounds, no provision was made for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I think that that was very tough treatment of the occupant of that position during the last four years. The fact that that oversight has been rectified at the level shown in the bill indicates how very desirable is this provision. 1 am delighted to see that steps have been taken by this committee, with the approval of the Government, to rectify the position. The only other thing I wish to refer to is this fact - that this is not the first in a series of wage rises in Australia; it is one of the last. These other rises were detailed by the Minister for the Navy, when he mentioned the increases that had been given to the judges, the heads of Parliamentary departments, and to public servants. Even if wage justice has not been done to the whole field, even if there are classes in this community who still have real needs in respect of something which should be done by the Parliament, I say that that would not be a reason for not doing justice in relation to the members of the Parliament itself. It would not help the other classes, or the other situations, to delay what I venture to suggest is a real need in the case of the great bulk of the members of this Parliament. The .position was so adequately covered by the Minister, and I so fully subscribe to what he said, that I conclude by saying that the bill, and its associated measure - the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1956 - have the unanimousapproval of the Opposition.

Senator WORDSWORTH (Tasmania) 10.33~. - I want to make my position very clear, in that I oppose the bill. I also want to make it very clear that, in many ways, I approve of the measure. [ approve of it because I consider that 110 member of Parliament who has no private means can do justice to his job if he has a family. I do not believe for a moment that he can live on his pay and do justice to his family - educate his children. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has stressed this point. I want to stress it, too. In fact, [ do not think that any member of this chamber, even one who has not a family, can do his real job if he has not some private means. If the public of Australia want good members of Parliament, they must be prepared to pay for them. There is a tremendous amount of criticism of the standard that we have in this Parliament, with which I do not agree. But if you lo really want good men in any walk of life, you have to pay them well. I think that men who are responsible for the welfare of the people of this country should be paid well. If we compare the remuneration that a member >>f Parliament will get, after the proposed -ise, with the lot of other people, particularly certain young girls who have just started in business as typists, we see that a member of Parliament will receive only about three times as much as an ordinary girl gets. There is a terrific difference in their responsibilities. I do not think that the public really appreciates thd wide field of expense to which a member of Parliament is put. Terrific claims are made on members’ purses for charity, and 1 think that they respond very generously. Claims by sporting bodies, also, constitute a big drain on their financial resources. T might say that I have been appointed a vice-president, a patron, or a vice-patron of practically every sporting body in the whole of Tasmania.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a tribute to the honorable senator’s personality.

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

– It is not because I am popular. I have been appointed a vice-patron of various organizations, ranging from pigeon-homing clubs to dog-racing clubs. It is pure political blackmail.

Senator Hannaford:

– The committee has advised members to oppose that sort of thing.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– I think that we should oppose it. But the fact is, that all members of both sides are subject to all these claims, and the public do not realize that. They do not realize the expense to which a member of Parliament is put when he agrees to drive a couple of hundred miles in his motor car in order to address a meeting of loca supporters. That is nothing ! The public do not consider it at all ; but on the other hand, they are very annoyed if the member does not go to the meeting.

The expenses of a member of Parliament are far higher than the public imagine. People outside are saying, “ You are voting yourselves an extra £12 a week “, but, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the net rise to members will not be anything like that amount. If a member has a private income, after taking into account the debits to which Senator McKenna has referred, it is unlikely that his net rise will exceed £2 a week. I am, perhaps, one of those lucky ones who have small private incomes. Although I do not expect to gain any more than £100 a year out of the proposed rise, certain people outside will probably say to me, “ You voted yourself a rise of £12 a week “. We must realize that no one but ourselves can vote members a rise.

Senator Benn:

– It is our responsibility.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– Although no one else can do it for us, it will be thrown up at us that we voted ourselves a rise. The general public thinks that we are getting princely salaries. An appropriate answer to that assertion would be, “ You can stand for Parliament and, if elected, get the same money”. But I have noticed that, when nominations close, not very many people have shown their willingness to stand for election and to lead a life of public responsibility.

From what I have said, some honorable senators might think that I am in favour of the bill.

Senator McKenna:

– Hear, hear !

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator has told us what he really thinks. He should now tell us what he wants to say.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– I shall now say why I oppose the bill. I oppose it for one reason only, and that is, that the present is not the correct time to increase parliamentary salaries.

Senator Hannaford:

– It never will be.

Senator WORDSWORTH:

– I. know that, from the point of view of a critical general public, it never will be, but I say this: We have asked the people - and, as a supporter of this Government, I accept my share of responsibility in this connexion - to pull their belts in a little tighter. I think that some one has to start - we have to start somewhere. Wages are going up every week, inflation is still mounting and costs of production in both primary and secondary industries are increasing. It is getting harder and harder every day for Australia to sell its products overseas. The prices of the main primary products we export are falling and a start has to be made somewhere to break this cycle. I say that if we had tried our best to choose a time that was unsuitable for the introduction of this measure we could not have picked a better time. Therefore, I intend to oppose this bill for the one reason that it should not be introduced at this moment. I urge the Government to hold its hand for another six, or perhaps twelve, months, until we can see how things work out. It may be a case of prolonging the agony, but I say that this vicious cycle has to be broken somewhere and the Government should set an example.

Senator HENTY (Tasmania) [10.42J. -The Richardson committee which conducted the inquiry into salaries and allowances of federal members of Parliament has submitted what I believe to be a very practical and common-sense report.

It set out in its inquiry, after taking evidence from, I believe, S4 per cent, of members, to establish the amount necessary for a federal member properly to conduct his electoral duties and to pay out of that amount the same income tax as any other citizen. By eliminating the present stamp allowance a member will have to pay out of his salary the amount he uses in stamps, and by the elimination of the gold pass he will have to pay his own rail and tram fares when not on political business. He will have to pay for his own and his wife’s holiday out of his income. I think that most of us who have had the previous privileges are glad that the committee has recommended their elimination, because they have always been to me the most obnoxious clauses of the old agreement.

The committee arrived at a salary of £2,350 a year plus £700 a year for travelling and car expenses. I am particularly glad to see that these expenses are again to be subject to income tax; they were previously exempted. After considering the recommendations of the committee, a? a practical business man with a full knowledge of the costs incurred by a member of Parliament, I do not believe the proposed salary and expenses to be excessive. I believe no one should be denied, because of financial stress, the right to enter Parliament. I regret, however, that the true aspect of the Richardson proposals has been sadly misrepresented to the general public by the press.- The press has highlighted the proposal for an increase in salary but has avoided calculating the recommendations which take away a number of the existing allowances. I think that has been very unfair because, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said to-night, the income tax proposals and the abolition of the stamp allowance and the travelling allowance, are substantial on the debit side of the Richardson proposals. Yet. day after day we have seen in the press only one side of those proposals highlighted. At no time has the press fully calculated what they mean on the other side, and I think it has most unfairly represented the position to the general public.

Like Senator Wordsworth., I cannot reconcile myself to the timing of the introduction of this bill. I am fully aware of the fact that it has been held up for eight months, but I am also fully aware that somewhere along the line a start has to be made to practise the restraint we are asking the people of Australia to practise. This Parliament has just imposed certain economic measures by way of an interim budget. An economic statement has recently been tabled which states clearly that risks lie ahead of the ship of state. Farm incomes are receding as costs rush to meet falling export prices and further import restrictions appear to be almost a certainty. The latest balance-sheets of our basic industries are the real pointers to our economic future. We are faced with reduced dividends and reduced profits. We may yet be called upon to seek further co-operation from the public of Australia by “way of further economic measures. It is in this economic atmosphere that my judgment compels me to deplore the riming of this measure.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I regret my absence from the chamber for a few minutes during this debate. I am, therefore, not as fully informed of the speeches that have been made during it as I should like to have been. I have, however, heard the remarks made by Senator Henty at the conclusion of his speech and I unreservedly associate myself with them. I propose to oppose this bill. I oppose the bill which increases salaries, first for the reason that T opposed the measure brought down in February last for the increase of ministerial salaries. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), out of his responsibility, adumbrated to the nation the need for restraint in September last before the general elections, so as to give the people the assurance that members of Parlialiament themselves participated in the apprehensions that he expressed, he asked the salaries committee to defer its report until after the 30th June. That, to my mind, is a different matter altogether from bringing in a report in October and implementing it as from the 1st July of this year. Any responsible committee sitting in the economic atmosphere after the 30th June this year might well counsel other courses than those which seemed to have been wise in October last.

Secondly, as I said to the committee in the evidence I sent to the committee, the amount of parliamentary salaries in the national budget, or in the cost structure of Australia, is a small matter of finance, but from” the point of view of its significance in respect of the trend of costs in Australia it is of overriding importance.

We should read again the economic statement made by the Prime Minister last September and his economic statement made last week. I also suggest that honorable senators read the basic wage judgment of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, issued last week, in which are some very thoughtful statements. The findings read to the effect that the wage and salary earner, whose earnings increase with the increase in the basic wage, desires that increase for one main reason, namely, to enable him to buy more goods, furniture, household equipment and the like and to buy his own home or rent a better one. His desire is thus to obtain a better standard of living. But the wage and salary earner will not attain that object simply by a money increase if the economy of the nation will not stand it. I wish to place this debate on an entirely impersonal level to the extent that a subject such as this can be debated on such a level. I put it to the Senate that in these circumstances a money increase is the weakest guarantee of an improvement in the financial, circumstances of members and senators, unless the increase is inflated. What we need is an economy in which for money we can obtain an ample supply of those things which we in the Parliament alone with every wageearner and salary-earner, seek to obtain for .our money.

If everybody rushes in succession for increases, we aggravate inflation and do nothing whatever to contribute to the supply of goods without which money is completely worthless. When we consider the trend of our overseas trade, and the reaction upon the chief supporters of the proper balance of our overseas trade - the primary producer - and when we study in the last quarterly index of statistics the graph showing exports in relation to imports, we must realize that it is the greatest unwisdom not to recognize the need for restraint in increases of prices, wages or salaries.

We in the Parliament have the privilege and the responsibility of giving a lead in that direction. The committee which reported on parliamentary salaries consisted of Sir Frank Richardson, Mr. Brown and Mr. Fitzgerald. They are persons whose concept of constitutional responsibility is unknown to me, and in their report there was no definition of their understanding of the purpose of the parliamentary allowance. I believe that I can read into their report a suggestion that the parliamentary allowance should he remuneration for a whole-time occupation by a parliamentarian.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Why should it not he so? Does the honorable senator wish to see only professional men in the Parliament?

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is the point. I. suggest that we shall endanger the Parliament if we constitute it of those who make their parliamentary occupation aprofession.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– Just have the wealthy representing the people?

Senator WRIGHT:

– If only the wealthy were to represent the people many of us would be absent. However, I do not desire to lose my calm approach to this debate. I have not heard one single reference in this debate to the House of Commons debates on a similar matter in 1954. The private member who introduced a motion to increase members’ allowances from a modest £1,000 to £1,500 a year said -

The debate to-day is the natural sequence to the debate which was held in the House on 13th May. It seems to me to have been generally agreed that that debate was distinguished for its high tone, for the absence of rancour and for the sense of responsibility with which honorable members from all sides of the House approached the delicate question of expenses of Members. i appeal for the same approach here, and [ remind honorable senators that the House of Commons resolved in 1954 by an overwhelming majority in favour of an increase from £1,000 a year to £1,500 a year. Three or four weeks later, on the 24th June - I refer to page 593 of Hansard of the House of Commons - the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said -

I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement. On the 14th April, 1 said to the House -

There is no doubt that a number of honorable Members are oppressed by serious difficulties because heavy and necessary expenses absorb so much of the parliamentary salary.

But I also said that, in the view of Her Majesty’s Government, it would not be right in present circumstances to proceed in the particular manner recommended by the Select Committee.

Later the Prime Minister also said -

We had no power to prevent it. It was the right of Members of all parties to put it down, and personally I was very much in favour of a free vote being given on the subject, but that does not remove the fact that the Government of the day representing the Crown in the matter, have the constitutional responsibility for any proposal involving a charge upon the public, and an expression of opinion by the House does not relieve them of their responsibility.

Those are words to which I hearken with anxiety, when I contrast our course in Australia with that followed in Great Britain. All I say is that those quotations demonstrate that the conception of parliamentary remuneration in the United Kingdom is not that it is remuneration on the basis of a full-time parliamentary occupation. When I read in the Richardson report references to the fact that 93 per cent, of the members of the Australian Parliament are occupied full-time in their parliamentary duties, it leads me to think that this assessment has been made upon a basis that is not a true one. I. am not disabused of that when I remind honorable senators that in the questionnaire which the committee circulated among them, they were asked what was the parliamentary salary sufficient for this, that and the other, and there was no reference to the constitutional allowance.

It is a fundamental problem, because if itis prudent to constitute the Parliament of those who alone can give all their time to the Parliament, we shall not get the best men without wealth for a salary of £2,300 a year plus expenses.I find no unanimous view that any British

Parliament will be improved if it is constituted of persons, who are full-time parliamentarians. It aggravates the grievances of other sections of the community, such as those who were dealt with under the basic-wage decision last week, who have been seeking increases of their wages for the past eighteen months.

The fourth matter to which I want to address myself is to express pleasure that the provision for altering parliamentary expenses allowances in relation to electorates is finally to be repealed. In 1952, we had a unique proposal - and I had the honour of opposing it alone - whereby X’s electorate expenses could be altered from £550 to £900 by a government regulation. That gave the government of the day too much financial influence over a member of Parliament. I would never suggest that it would be abused in our time, but it was the beginning of a rift in the wall of parliamentary independence, and it gladdens my heart to see that that means of corruption has been removed from our parliamentary system.

Now I wish to refer to the question of exemption from income tax of a section of the parliamentary salary or remuneration. That was introduced as a most novel feature in 1952, and I am very pleased to see that the Richardson report recommends its repeal so that parliamentarians, in relation to their income, will be on the same basis as everybody else in respect of the income tax they impose upon all sections of the community. I do not rejoice in paying income tax, but I understand the responsibility of imposing it, because I share equally with X and Y outside this House. I am very pleased to see, after three or four years’ trial of that unfair provision, that it is being abandoned. I have said that I believe it is a matter that should be discussed from the point of view of national principle.

If anybody is concerned with my personal position, either so far as I am affected by parliamentary allowances or otherwise, I am prepared to reveal it to any accredited auditor who may be se,1 to me. I only mention this matter to indicate that I do not regard this as involving one’s personal position in the slightest, but I would be leaving a false impression with the Senate if I led honor able senators to believe; that I,, with my responsibilities, did not have financial needs. 1 have no great advantage over thi* rest of you.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I desire to address myself to the debate on the bill, which I am supporting. I believe that the passage of this bill, and the extra cost resulting to the Australian Government, will have no appreciable impact upon the Commonwealth of Australia. In speaking to this bill, I say quite sincerely that, unlike some others, I do not propose to try to sway members on the other side of the chamber to vote one way or another. Let us be frank. The majority of us believe that the bill provides for a fair and honest increase in the remuneration of members of Parliament and, in due course, it will become law. Even if I oppose the bill, nothing I could say would sway the opinions or the open votes of honorable senators, but I do deprecate the fact that the measure is being allowed to pass without a very full debate.

The salaries, remuneration and allowances of the members of Parliament are of the utmost importance. It is an extraordinarily strange coincidence that only a Tasmanian member, other than the leaders of the parties, spoke on the bill in another place. To-night, without any previous plotting or discussion and, as will be seen later, with a great deal of divergence of opinion, Tasmanian senators are addressing themselves to the measure. Apart from them there is complete silence from honorable senators, in their private capacity, on both sides of the chamber.

The introduction of this measure is an opportune occasion for the Parliament to fa.ee facts and discuss, in a constructive manner, the question of salaries and remuneration of members of the Parliament. If we do not do that now, the matter will go into the discard, and will not be raised again until there is. need for another increase. Then members of Parliament, whoever they may he at the time, will suffer the indignities, the abuse and the stupid criticisms that we have suffered since August last. I do rot think that any public man in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia should be asked to put up with what we have bad to endure, and will have to put up with for another three weeks, because of the handling of this matter and the system by which increases are arranged. We have not altered it, so all of us on both sides of the chamber are culpable. We are going to put up with this reaction Again and again until steps are taken to introduce some new system.

This is a time when we should pool our ideas and produce something constructive to submit to the Government for consideration. I have been in the Parliament only three years, but I have been on the outside of this and other parliaments looking in for a long time. I know that every time a salary increase for members of Parliament is submitted, the process in the States has been to introduce a measure suddenly, without any previous publicity and without inquiries. The increases have been granted on the decision of Cabinet. There has been bitter criticism. Now, the majority of the critics of the proposal under discussion say, “ Yes, you need the increase, but this is not the right time”. Honorable members and honorable senators are being abused, particularly by the editors of newspapers in their sheltered havens, who say that we are voting ourselves a. large amount of money.

What did this Government do? In August it appointed a committee. It was criticized by the Sydney Daily Telegraph because the members of the committee had no constitutional knowledge. The Government appointed the committee in August, and announced what it was to do. In October, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced that the increases of salary and allowances would not be granted before the beginning of the next financial year. Then members of the House of Representatives and half the number of senators went before the electorates. The electors knew that in the next session of the Parliament the salaries of members would be increased. They did not change the personnel of either House very much and at least they were told quite frankly before the election that flip Government, proposed to increase the salaries and allowances in accordance with the recommendations made by the Richardson committee. In my view, governments could go still further. Having decided that an increase will be made, it should be made known to the public that such increase will take effect as from the first day after the election. If that were done, all candidates would go before the electors knowing how much the increase would be if they were returned to Parliament. Although I am not a betting man, I am willing to wager that the personnel of the National Parliament would not be altered very much if the people were given full and candid information relating to the question of salaries. As I have said already, the press criticism merely is, in effect, “ Yes, you need it, but it is not the right time “. All I can say in answer to such criticism is that there never will be a right time unless we get down to some proper system of setting out bow the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament shall be determined.

As I am not one who criticizes without making suggestions, I now submit that Parliament should appoint a statutory committee whose duty it should be to inquire from time to time into the salaries and allowances of members of the Parliament. It could be a committee comprised of senior public servants; it could have as members people, such as the president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce for the time being. The question of the personnel, of the committee is one for closer examination by the Government. All I suggest is that three or four people occupying stipulated positions in the community should be called together from time to time to determine the salaries and allowances of members of this Parliament. Such a committee could furnish its report to the Government, which, in collaboration with the Opposition, could either accept or reject it. If the Government decided to accept the committee’s recommendations, it should introduce legislation to give effect to them, and it should state openly in such a measure that the increases will be paid as from the first day after the election. The Government should also lay down a basis upon which the committee should work.

For instance, it may be asked what should be a decent income for a. member of Parliament who is a family man and has no other income apart from his parliamentary salary. At various times we have heard bandied about the phrase, “ professional politician “, but I emphasize that the working man, the employee who lives in a distant State and who serves in this Parliament, has very little opportunity, unless he has capital to invest, co secure any part-time employment which would give him added income from personal exertion. I suppose this Parliament, more than any other in the history of the Commonwealth, has more members of that type; because, in recent elections, the Australian public has elected to both sides of the Parliament young men and women of the employee type. If that is the type of representative the Australian people desire to have, we should abide by their wishes, and, when framing our legislation, we should include full particulars relating to the salaries and allowances of members. If the tory instinct is going to dominate Australia in this matter - if only wealthy professional men, those who inherit wealth or big businessmen are to represent the Australian people in Parliament - and if the salaries of members of lesser means are to be paid on that basis, I suggest that we shall be sounding the death knell of the decent democracy that now prevails in Australia. Certainly, we shall not get the good government or the versatile and sincere representation that [ believe we enjoy to-day.

Another principle that this committee which I envisage should adopt is the laying down of the travelling allowances of members of the Parliament. Those allowances should be set out specifically so that there will be no misunderstanding and so that the ever-present critics will have no opportunities to have “ a shot “ at those who represent them in the Federal Parliament. I agree with previous speakers who have suggested that from the parliamentarian’s point of view it was most unwise to provide in the legislation for tax-free allowances. This has given rise to a tremendous amount of misconception, ignorant thought and unfounded criticism during the last three years. Leaders of commerce and industry have said to me that I receive £500 free of income tax and have suggested that L do not pay income tax on the remainder of my remuneration. They completely misunderstand the whole position. I believe that all incomes should be taxable; but the responsible authorities should set out clearly the deductions that will be allowable for taxation purposes. We are all agreed that if a member of Parliament, a senator in particular, attempts to go on a holiday in his State, he finds himself working at politics all the time. If he wants to get away from politics, he is compelled to go outside his own State. Those parliamentarians who happen tj be professional or business men and who travel, perhaps, from Hobart to Launceston and back, in order to sell a piece of machinery, can charge a proportion ->i their travel costs to business expenses; but a member who has no other occupation is in a different position. Is he to be reimbursed the whole of his travelling expenses? We want that laid down definitely by the taxation authorities so that we can tell our critics the full facts. Do not let us rush through a measure of this kind in 35 minutes and leave ourselves open to headlines, such as “ The golden silence “, which I read on one occasion. Actually, I rather appreciated the cleverness of the sub-editor who wrote it. The more we set out the facts frankly, the more we shall prevent criticism of members of Parliament and the more we shall help to retain the prestige of this Parliament. I repeat that the question of taxation allowances should be set out specifically and in detail. 1 shall not weary the Senate by quoting extracts from the Richardson committee’!’ report, but I regret that its recommendations were not published throughout Australia for the people to read. We must never prohibit criticism; if we are sincere we can assume that whatever criticism is made will be fair. The Richardson committee’s report has not been criticized by the press or by the public, although, really, it has not been fairly quoted to the public. As to the present proposed increases, I cannot say whether they are too much or too little and I am not prepared to offer an opinion at the moment. All I can say is that I made a close study of the situation during the time when the Richardson committee’s report was being prepared, and I studied it from the point of view of a person in my own position. 1 felt that an increase was necessary, but £ did not think of an amount as large as that which was recommended. I do not think any member of the Parliament should be called upon to discuss his or her economic position even though we have to be upstanding here and say, “ Yes, we feel that we should get an increase in pay “. No other person is required to disclose his economic position and I do not think we need to discuss that point here; but I should like it recorded in Hansard that I am prepared to address any meeting in my own State of Tasmania on that subject between now and 1959, because I firmly believe that the criticism that this increase is wrongly timed has no real basis. We all know that whenever we sUggest increasing salaries some people say that it is the wrong time. It is arrant nonsense to say that it is the wrong time. Not one person in Australia will tighten his belt - I think that is the expression my colleague and friend used - if we increase our salaries. Not one penny more or less will be spent by any individual in the Commonwealth on any item, whether we increase our salaries or not. I do not believe that the extra expenditure in a year will have any impact on the Australian economy. But I suggest to the Government that it has an opportunity, by careful and wise administration, to save the people of Australia the extra amount that we, in this bill, are voting to ourselves, in accordance with our definite constitutional rights.

The party I represent believes in fair payment for the services, responsibilities and duties of an employee, and honorable senators, in this case, are the employees. Who is the judge of what we should receive and of what are our responsibilities and costs? Only we, ourselves, or the committee - independent and worthy - which took evidence, considered it and gave its opinion. I willingly abide by its judgment and decision. I hope that the Senate will agree to this measure, and that senators will be able to face the electors as honest men and women with a sincere concept of their duty.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– I did not intend to intervene in this debate, nor will I do so for very long, but three or four observations have bean made which have exercised my mind, and on which I should like to say a few words. Three or four matters of principle have been admitted, and on an occasion such as this they could well be stated by one who believes in them.

First, honorable senators should make it quite clear, and say that it is true- -as I believe it to be true - that those who suggest that some outside court or body should fix the remuneration of members of Parliament are entirely wrong. On an occasion such as this, we should affirm again that Parliament is the only authority which can, or should, fix the remuneration of members of Parliament. There are great constitutional reasons why that should ba affirmed and why members of Parliament in a sovereign country should; not be subject, as to their remuneration,, to any outside committee or court, to thi Crown, or to the Government.

Some observations of Senator Wright brought this to my mind, because it : appeared to me that, when speaking of a debate in the House of Commons, he indicated that it was the opinion of Mr. Churchill and the British Government that it was that government which should fix the wages or salaries of members of the House of Commons. I have talked this matter over with the honorable senator since, and know that he did not intend to convey that impression. However, I want to make it clear as, on an occasion such as this, it should be made clear. If honorable senators look back on the history of the evolution of the Parliament as a guardian of the rights of the people against all forms of authority which, but for Parliament, might be arbitrary, they. .must affirm that,, as against Crown or government, it is members of Parliament who should fix , the remuneration of members of Parliament.

Another observation mad_e by Senator Wright should be contradicted- that is, that no provision should be made, in considering such remuneration, for those who find themselves dependent entirely on such remuneration.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I did not make that observation. : ‘

Senator GORTON:

– It appeared very much to me that Senator Wright did.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That is the inference which I gained.

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

– The Leader of the Senate misunderstood my remark, and he should not interject if he did so.

Senator GORTON:

– Perhaps one should proceed on the basis of dealing with what one understood Senator Wright to say. I have heard a similar argument advanced in other quarters. I say again that honorable senators should affirm, as I do, that in fixing the amount of remuneration, they must be careful not to keep out of this Parliament any person who is relying solely on the remuneration he is given here, because in order to enter Parliament he may have to give up some other source of income, such as the earnings from a shop or small business which he has conducted entirely by himself. I am pleased that honorable senators are almost unanimous on this point. These are principles not involved in the particular points under discussion, but nevertheless I considered that they should be affirmed, partly because I thought they had been impugned and partly because I thought they had been overlooked.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Those of that opinion say “ Aye “.

Honorable Senators. - “ Aye “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Those to the contrary say “ No “.

Senator Wright:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “Ayes” have it.

Senator Wright:

– The “ Noes “ have it.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Only one voice said “No”.

Senator Wright:

– The “ Noes “ have it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Only one voice called “ No “, but if a division is called for it may proceed. Does the honorable senator want a division?

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1184

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1956

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30th May (vide page 1076), on motion by Senator O’Sullivan -

That the bill he now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1184

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1956

In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 1173).

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– When this bill was considered earlier by the committee, we (reported progress and asked leave to sit again, in order to consider the suggestions of Senator Wright and Senator McKenna in regard to proposed new section 88a of the bill. This provision relates to the televising of sporting events. The Government introduced an amendment designed to give sporting bodies control of the televising of events from both inside and outside arenas or buildings where events were being held. Senator Wright and Senator McKenna suggested that the position in relation to television was different from that relating to sound broadcasting. It was pointed out that, in regard to sound broadcasting, sporting bodies exercised rights inside an enclosure where the event was taking place, and that they had no rights outside such enclosure. It was suggested that the same rights should be available in connexion with sound broadcasting as will be available in connexion with television under the Government amendment. In order to meet the wishes of the two honorable senators I asked the committee to report progress so that this matter could be discussed with the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson). Both Senator Wright and I have seen the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), who is not prepared to accept the amendment that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) or the suggestion put forward by Senator Wright. He stated that this matter had been very carefully and extensively discussed by the Government, and that the Government had had the advice of the sporting bodies of Australia. Between 25 and 30 representatives of the sporting bodies of Australia met in Melbourne and then came to Canberra and discussed this whole matter of the rights of sporting bodies in regard to television. That is the reason that the Government amendment is before us to-night. The idea is to put into the legislation the matters requested by the sporting bodies.

I may mention that the delegates from the sporting bodies were well-known people and included Mr. Stanley Lewis, of the South Australian Football League. I think that most. South Australians in this chamber will either know him or know his name. After the conference, he telegraphed to the Postmaster-General expressing appreciation and thanks regarding the acceptance of the proposals. Mr. F. M. Gush, the chairman of the Australian Cricket Board of Control also telegraphed the Postmaster-General saying

Thanks for your telegram advising me of action of your Government in regard to television bill. Kindly accept appreciation of my board and myself for such action and your own splendid effort.

Honorable senators may be interested to know that the conference delegated seven representatives to meet the PostmasterGeneral and tell him exactly what the conference had decided. Those representatives worked out a draft of what waa desired, and that was shown to the conference and accepted without question. The proposals have given rise to the Government amendment that is before us to-night.

It has been said that we should provide for power to prevent the broadcasting of sporting events from outside areas where the events take place. This matter was raised at the conference of the sporting bodies, but was not pressed to any degree. In that respect, the sporting bodies were satisfied to carry on with the position that had existed for some years. The commercial broadcasting stations also were quite happy with the arrangement, although they were not represented at the conference, which was between the sporting bodies, the television people and representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government decided that, as this arrangement waa working well, it would allow it to remain. The Government could see no reason to alter it, especially as there had been no strong request from the people who would be most interested to prevent the broadcasting of events from outside a sports arena for a prohibition similar to that being provided in respect of television. The Government then gave an undertaking to the sporting bodies that it would keep the question under observation and review it if the need arose. The sporting bodies were quite satisfied with that undertaking. That is the position at the present time.

I ask Senator Wright to meet the Government in this regard. I have done all I can to help him put his views forward, by postponing the committee’s consideration of this matter and accompanying him in his interview with the PostmasterGeneral.

Senator Wright:

– That is very much appreciated.

Senator COOPER:

– As I have said, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. As the hour is late, and I have done my best to explain the position, I shall leave it at that.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move, as an amendment to the Minister’s amendment -

That, in proposed section 88a, all words after “ Commission “ be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “or a licensee shall not -

broadcast a contemporaneous description of the whole or a part of any sporting event or other entertainment held in Australia, after the commencement of this section, in a place to which a charge is made for admission ; or

televise, either directly or by means of any recording, film or other material or device, the whole or any part of such a sporting event or other entertainment, except in accordance with an agreement with the promoter of the sporting event or other entertainment.”.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

– I hope I am in order, Mr. Chairman, in speaking of the suggestion of Senator Wright concerning the insertion of the word “ broadcasting “ in the proposed amendment of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). I feel that logic is all on the side of Senator Wright’s proposal, but I think that this is one of those cases where logic is not the compelling force which, in many instances, it ought to be. It appears to me that the present position is that the sporting clubs have been worried about the televising of sporting events because they have felt that, whereas broadcasting very often builds up attendances, television quite definitely drags them down. Because they have that fear of television, they have sought complete protection from pirate televisers from outside sports grounds.

I believe that Senator Wright has shown that, in spite of the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposi- tion(SenatorMcKenna),thisamendment, in conjunction with the common law, does in fact give complete protection to sporting bodies from pirate television from outside sports grounds. That appears to be all that the sporting bodies want. They seem to be entirely happy and are not in the least perturbed by the fact that they may still continue to suffer, although they have not suffered from pirate broadcasting.

Senator Wright, quite logically, says nevertheless that they should be given that protection against pirate broadcasts. However, the present position is that the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations and the sporting clubs have, over the years, evolved a modus vivendi for the broadcasting of sporting events which is working very well and without complaint from either side. It seems to me that the insertion of an amendment of this kind might upset that modus vivendi and change the conditions under which it is at present working so well. I do not know what was in the mind of either of the parties to this discussion, but it seems to me that the Australian Broadcasting Commission might very well have thought, “ We can broadcast from outside the ground if the sporting clubs make it too difficult. They know this and will not make it too tough for us by charging excessive rates.” In the circumstances, it would be as well to leave the position unchanged. It is working well and it might be better to leave it unchanged rather than adopt the course suggested by logic.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

. -I thank the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) for accepting the suggestion that the committee should report progress while he discussed the matter with his colleague. I appreciate his- courtesy and regret that the compromise proposal was not acceptable. We believe that the sporting bodies have been ill-advised in believing that they are protected by the wording that the Government has adopted and therefore we shall persevere with the amendment as I have announced it. I think that it would be best now to proceed to a division.

Question put -

Thatthewordsproposedtobeleft out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (TheChairman-SenatortheHon. A.D.Reid.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 23

Majority 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (Senator Cooper’s) agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

That sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed new section 89be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-sections: - “(1.) The Commission and every licensee shall, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, provide facilities, free of charge and on an equitable and impartial basis, for the broadcasting and televising of matter relating to questions of national importance, being questions of political or industrial controversy or relating to current policies, and the Board shall give such directions to licensees as are necessary to ensure compliance by them with this sub-section. “ (1a.) Nothing in the last preceding subsection requires the Commission or a licensee to provide facilities to or for a political party that is not represented in either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and has lot been so represented during the preceding period of three months.”.

I am proposing the insertion of these new sub-sections in place of sub-section (1.), which reads - (1.) Subject only to this section, the Commission may determine to what extent and in what manner political matter or controversial matter will be broadcast or televised by the Commission.

Under the present act there is an obligation upon the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to ensure that political broadcasts, and talks of that nature, shall beprovided by the commission, and by the licensees, upon a just and equitable basis. That injunction to the board has been removed, there is now no obligation upon the commission to arrange for such broadcasts. The obligation is cast upon commercial stations in that matter only if they embark upon political broadcasts at all. If they do not do that, they are under no obligation to record controversial or political talks. We of the Opposition think that it is most important that the great issues of the day should be debated. We know from the report of the royal commission that that is done by agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the various parliamentary parties. The whole matter is detailed in the report, and I do no more than summarize the position by saying that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his opposite number are given an opportunity to speak on the budget. The principle agreed upon for the present year is that there shall be twelve talks in all, six for the Government, five for the Labour Opposition, and one for the Liberal Opposition. The British Broadcasting Corporation invites particular men from the Parliament to the microphone. Altogether, that arrangement works very well, in that, through the year, the great issues of the day are debated before the nation. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for a similar arrangement here, and we think that, in major matters, such broadcasts ought to be provided free.

Friday, 1 June 1956

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Proposed new section 89 relates to the broadcast and television of political and controversial matters by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government has carefully considered the amendment submitted by the Opposition, and is not prepared to accept it.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (thechairman-senatorthehon. a.d.Reid.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 40 -

Divisions 3 and 4 of Part III. of the Principal Act are repealed and the following Divisions inserted in their stead: -

Division 4. - Programmes. “64. A licensee shall broadcast or televisefrom his station Divine Worship or other matter of a religious nature during such periods as the Board determines and, if theBoard so directs, shall do so without charge.’

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I wish to ask somequestions of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) and, possibly, tomove an amendment. First, I should likethe Minister to inform me of the meaning of the phrase “ or other matter of a religious nature “. What does that phrase imply in relation to television? Who will determine whether a certain matter is of a religious nature - theboard, or somebody who has the right to broadcast?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

. -I understand that the phrase “ other matter of a religious nature “ means religious services conducted other than in a church and addresses on religious subjects delivered other than in a church.

Senator McCallum:

– But who determines whether a matter is a religiousmatter - the board or the people who provide it?

Senator COOPER:

– Quite a lot of such material is prepared by various denominations. If, for instance, a broadcast were prepared by the Church of England, that would be regarded as a religious service. If there were any doubt about it, the board would have todetermine the matter.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– I wish to addressmyself to the particular aspect of thismatter that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has just mentioned. I think that we are on very dangerousground if we give to a board of laymen, concerning whose religions we know nothing, and can know nothing - as I shall show later - the power to determine what is or is not of a religious nature. Section 116 of the Constitution, which I mentioned earlier, provides -

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, andno religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

That was laid down by the fathers of the Constitution because they knew the bitter results of sectarian division in the United Kingdom and in other countries. Religion is something that is very hard to define. I took the trouble to look up the word in Webster’s Dictionary, and I found eight paragraphs of definitions. Even the first paragraph defined religion as something that could be quite contrary to the Christian religion or even to a deistic religion. I think that we shall be on most dangerous ground if we give any power whatever to a board to determine any of these matters. We know what divine worship is. If we allot space and time and allow any body which we know has a definite form of doctrine to give services, we shall know where we are. But if we allow the board to say, “ This is religious matter, and we order yon to broadcast it”, where are we?

I shall not press the matter to a division nor propose an amendment, because [ know that at this hour, when we cannot give full attention to it, we might decide the issue on insufficient evidence. But J ask the Minister to give me a definite assurance that the board will have no right to say that certain matter shall be broadcast which some people - perhapsa majority of the people or perhaps a minority - may regard as hot being religious matter.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Perhaps the best that I can do is to refer to section 6k (2.) of the existing act, which provides that the functions of the board shall be to - ensure that divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast for adequate periods and at appropriate times and that no matter which is not of a religious nature is broadcast by a station during any period during which divine worship or other matter of a religious nature is broadcast by that station.

That provision is to be deleted.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I shall let it go at that.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 50 to 58 - by leave - considered together and agreed to.

Clause 59 -

Section one hundred and seven of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the words”, and, in particular, for -

making provision for -

the settlement of disputes as to the making of, or refusal to make, an agreement for the purposes of section eighty eight A of this Act;

ii ) the terms of the determination of such a dispute to have the same effect, for the purposes of that sec tion, as if they were the terms of such an agreement; and

requiring persons (including persons connected with or under the control ofa party to the dispute) to comply with the terms of the determination of such a dispute; and

preventing interference to the transmission or reception of the programmes of broadcasting stations or television stations “.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That all words after “ thereof “ be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the words - and, in particular, for preventing interference to the transmission or reception of the programmes of broadcasting stations or television stations

The purpose of the amendment is to exclude from the clause the proposed provisions for the settlement of disputes between the commission, licensees of television stations and sporting bodies. I have already explained the reason for the previous amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 62 agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule consequentially amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 12.18 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 May 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560531_senate_22_s8/>.