Senate
23 February 1967

26th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 83

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, whoever is the appropriate Minister, lt refers to a Press report from Adelaide on 4th January 1967 that a counterfeit $10 note discovered at a private bank on 3rd January 1967 had been part of a large deposit by the Grenfell Street Post Office. I ask the Minister: is it a fact that many official post offices now use private banking facilities? Is this the result of a Government direction to the PostmasterGeneral? As official post offices are agencies of the Commonwealth Bank also, how does the Minister justify this practice? Will the Minister investigate this matter and take immediate action to see that post offices and Commonwealth departments use Commonwealth banking facilities?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will reply to the question. It deals with some matters of policy relating to the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department. Therefore I ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper and I will obtain a reply to it from the PostmasterGeneral.

page 83

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a column in today’s Australian’ to the effect that Overseas Containers Ltd, a United Kingdom company, announced last night that it had ordered six 27,000 ton container ships for the AustraliaBritain run, to be delivered between January and June 1969? Has the Minister observed particularly that the service would be maintained between Tilbury, Fremantle, Sydney and Melbourne only and that the round trip would take sixty-three days? As it would appear that the important main land ports of Outer Harbour and Port Adelaide, both with extensive areas adjacent for container handling, are thus being bypassed by these overseas ships, will the Minister take up with the Prime Minister the whole question of the provision of Australian based facilities for overseas container shipping, particularly to ensure that the primary producers, manufacturers, exporters and importers of South Australia and the South Australian community generally receive the manifest benefit of direct overseas container shipping?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– I have read the article to which the honourable senator refers and many others also on the subject of containerisation which is a very complex system and is in its infancy as far as Australia is concerned. We have a lot to learn about it yet. When reading the article to which Senator Laught referred, I noted that the company proposed Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney as its ports of call. Of course, the success or otherwise of the container system depends on the speedy turnround of vessels. Therefore, I can see the reasons that have motivated the company in reaching its decision. There are also the reasons that the honourable senator raises concerning manufacturers and producers in States where there are no container ports. This will mean a very large assembly around a port itself for the storage of these containers.

It will mean that producers and manufacturers in those States will have to transport their goods to other States in which container ports exist. Either we will have to make provision for such ports in every State or some consideration will have to be given to enabling exporters in particular to transport their goods to the container terminals in other States at a cost not exceeding the present total cost of sending their goods overseas. As a matter of fact, in view of the advantages of the container system I should think that the cost would have to be less than that of the present system of handling their goods.

This matter is before the Minister for Trade and Industry who has been giving very close consideration to this system. I recommend to the honourable senator the publication issued by the Department of Trade and Industry on this matter. It is well worth reading. It covers a wide field. I certainly will see that this matter is discussed, as the honourable senator requested me to do.

page 84

QUESTION

AMERICAN SPACE CAPSULE

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. Recently there has been a lot of Press publicity about a missing American space capsule, but lately the subject seems to have been dropped from the Press. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether an aerial search for this missing capsule, which is supposed to contain insects, bacteria and plants, has been conducted over an area of Western Australia? If such a search has been conducted, who conducted it? Has it been successful? If it has not been successful, is it intended to make any further search of other Australian territory?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– At the request of the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under whose charge this capsule was, we made a search in Western Australia with light aircraft. A considerable area was searched, but no find was made. We have completed that search. As yet we have not had any request from NASA to search any other territory. So no other search by the Department of Supply is proceeding.

page 84

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister repre senting the Treasurer the following question: will the Government consider cancelling the provision in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to pay only part pensions to some people who are invalided out of the armed services, and instead provide full pensions to all persons who are invalided out for any reason other than misconduct?

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I will convey the honourable senator’s request to the Treasurer.

page 84

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REFERENDUM

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Some of this morning’s newspapers carry a news item stating that the Govern ment has made a decision on the holding of the referendum that was proposed in 1965. Has the Government made such a decision? If it has, when can we expect an announcement to be made to the Parliament?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that the Prime Minister may be saying something on this matter in the House of Representatives this morning. That is the extent of my information at the moment.

page 84

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise whether the necessary medical supplies required for both soldiers and civilians in Vietnam by Australian expert medical and surgical teams in that area are now being supplied? This grave lack of essential drugs was pointed out to our parliamentary delegation some seven months ago and reported to the Government by the Minister in charge of the delegation. May I add that at Long Xuyen hospital-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is supposed to be asking a question.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I feel that in order to justify the question I should advise the Senate of the exact commodities-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! If the honourable senator keeps to his question he will be in order.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– May I be permitted to point out that it was stated-

Senator Cormack:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. Your ruling is being canvassed by the honourable senator:

The PRESIDENT:

– I appreciate that. The point of order has substance. I inform Senator Fitzgerald that he can ask questions but that he may not make statements. If he observes that rule, he will not get into any difficulty.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I will exclude from my question that portion relating to commodities lacking in the hospitals that we visited at that time. I ask: will the Minister secure an assurance that this very great problem which we found there has been rectified?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– This question will have to be placed on the notice paper. So far as the Department of Supply is concerned, I am not aware of any shortage which has not been rectified. Before answering the question, however, I. would like to obtain some information from the Minister for Health or whoever is the. relevant authority. I will do that as quickly as possible.

page 85

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION AND IRRIGATION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether there is likely to be an early decision on the request of the Queensland Government for financial assistance to construct a dam and associated irrigation works on the Nogoa River near Emerald in central Queensland?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– A request has been received from the Queensland Premier in relation to this project. The Government asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to review it and to submit a report. That report is now before the Government. 1 understand that shortly a submission will be made by the Treasury and that a decision can be expected from the Government in the not distant future.

page 85

QUESTION

FORESTRY

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Education and Science seen a statement by the New South Wales Government that it intends to send civil aid officers - namely, housing and forestry officers - to Vietnam to assist in the rehabilitation of that country? Is the Minister aware that the World Bank Mission of 1964 recommended a four-fold increase in timber production in Papua and New Guinea over the period 1964 to 1969? Is there an increasing demand for forestry graduates to take their place in the Australian industry? Did the Martin Committee on Tertiary Education recognise the need for additional Australian foresters and did it recommend the establishment of a third forestry school in Australia? Has this recommendation so far been ignored by the Government? In view of the vital necessity to build up our national forestry resources, will the Government give urgent reconsideration to the recommendation of the Martin Committee?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I do not have in my mind the precise wording of the recommendation of the Martin Committee in this matter. The honourable senator no doubt will be aware that a significant School of Forestry is being constructed in the Australian National University. This will open shortly. Although, as I have said, I do not have the exact words of the recommendation in my mind, this School may well be a step along the path which the honourable senator has suggested.

page 85

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GAIR:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air whether it is a fact that Australia has only one squadron of Iroquois helicopters in Vietnam for a force of 4,300 men, and that while a further 900 troops are to be sent to Vietnam, there will be no increase in the number of helicopters there. Is it a fact that our deficiencies in numbers of helicopters in Vietnam are being offset by the use of American helicopters? Is the Government satisfied to continue to impose on the United States of America to enable our help to that nation to be effective?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Without going into a lot of detail in replying to the honourable senator’s question, I can say that it is a well known fact that Australia is using to a very large degree the services of some of the vast number of American helicopters in Saigon and surrounding areas. On the occasionI visited South Vietnam I also had the use of several American helicopters. It is very comforting indeed to see the number of helicopters in South Vietnam.

The use of American helicopters by Australians is part of the arrangement that has been entered into between our American allies and the Australian forces in the conduct of operations in Vietnam. Perhaps I should go a little further and say that a very high tribute was paid to our American allies by the commander of the Australian task force in South Vietnam during my visit, not only for their splendid cooperation but also for their assistance in every possible manner whenever it was required.

page 86

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Housing, concerns homes savings grants. Did the Government announce that a discretionary power would be given to the Minister to extend the benefit of the homes savings grant scheme to those people whose building contracts were of values close to the permissible limits? Now that the Government has acted to extend to $15,000 the value of contracts which will attract the grant, can the Minister use discretion in making the grant available to those people who previously entered into contracts approximating that amount?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Prime Minister, in his policy speech before the last general election, promised that the homes savings grant would be extended in two ways: first, to assist widowed persons aged less than 36 years with one or more dependent, children; secondly, to raise the limit on the value of the home including land. which can attract a grant from $14,000 to $15,000. These are not discretionary matters. They are extensions of the homes savings grant scheme and will come before Parliament in legislation in due time.

The honourable senator has asked what is the operative date of the new limit on the value of a home and land. On 7th February last I made a statement to the Press that the extension to the scheme would date back to 28th November 1966, which was the first day of business after the result of the general election was known.

page 86

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 preface my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General by reminding him that on numerous occasions during the last sessional period I asked whether the telephones of any members of the Parliament were tapped by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. On the last day of the sessional period the Attorney-General replied that he would not disclose this information. Will the Minister ask the newly appointed AttorneyGeneral whether he will reconsider this matter and assure the Parliament that the rights of members are not being trampled on this way by the security service?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I will bring the honourable senator’s question to the notice of the Attorney-General, but 1 would be most surprised if the standing practice of governments of all kinds for many years were in any way altered.

page 86

QUESTION

SPACECRAFT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Supply is supplementary to the one asked by Senator Branson concerning the alleged . missing spacecraft. As part of Australia’s efficient air safety procedures is there any system in operation to keep all Australian civil aviation authorities informed as to the approximate whereabouts of delinquent space vehicles launched by other countries which may be seeking asylum in Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– To the best of my knowledge, there is complete contact with the Department of Civil Aviation in every field of satellite activities, whether the satellites arc mavericks ot normal ones. The honourable senator has asked a very interesting question. T would like him to place it on the notice paper because 1 would like to go further into this matter. I am sure that there would be contact with the Department of Civil Aviation. However. I would like to give the Senate the exact details as to how we keep in contact.

page 86

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Housing a question whichis supplementary to that asked by Senator Webster. Will the Minister elaborate on the Governor-General’s Speech which stated that the Government would introduce legislation to give the Department of Housing discretionary powers to deal with certain cases of hardship that have arisen since the commencement of the homes savings grant scheme? What is intended by the word hardships’? Does it relate to the cost of the house? Does it relate to the Minister’s reference back to the period after the last election?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– First of all I would draw the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s policy speech.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have not read it

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Perhaps I should read these points to the honourable senator. In fact, 1 will give him a copy of the policy speech. The Prime Minister in his policy speech, when speaking of discretionary power, stated that it was to be used to extend the time limit for the lodgment of applications from three months to twelve months and to empower the Department to accept applications lodged within a further period if circumstances suggested that this was justified. 1 know that this was one of the matters which has been causing concern.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Has the Prime Minister changed his mind since and extended the period further?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– There has been no change of mind since the policy speech was delivered. I know that when this matter is dealt with by legislation, the. honourable senator will have great pleasure in supporting it because it will overcome many of the problems which he and other honourable senators have put to mc from time to time. 1 think Senator Cavanagh referred to the value of the house and land. This is not a matter for the exer-uSe of the discretionary power. Up to this time the legislation has provided that the limit for the value of the house and land which was acceptable for this grant was $14,000. There is no discretionary power on this question. This is the amount which is provided in the legislation but. as the Prime Minister stated in his policy speech, the scheme is to be extended and the limit on the value of the home including the land will be increased from $14,000 to $15,000. Of course, as honourable senators realise, this matter will be the subject of legislation, as will other matters in the policy speech. Because wc wanted the people to know that the limit had been increased, I made a Press statement on 7th February which, in effect, stated that all eligible persons who acquired a house and land costing not more than $15,000 on or after 28th November may qualify for the grant. That was a very good date to choose, lt indicates the sincerity of the Government in expressing a desire that people should get the greatest possible benefit from the scheme. Honourable senators will recall that 28 th November was the first day of business after the recent election.

page 87

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether a firm date has been decided upon for a meeting of Commonwealth and State fishing authorities to devise ways and means of stopping the indiscriminate slaughter of dolphins around the Australian coastline.

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I do not know whether a firm date has been fixed. I shall inquire from the Minister for Primary Industry and let the honourable senator know.

page 87

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I address to the Minister for Housing a further question in relation to the new discretionary authority that is about to be given to her to deal with cases of hardship. Is it proposed that the Department will review applications which have already been made or will it be necessary for fresh representations to be made in particular instances?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I again direct the attention of the honourable senator to the policy speech of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that these discretionary powers will apply to eligible persons who bought or commenced to build their homes on or after 2nd December 1963. Included in such cases will be those which involve an application for an extension of the time limit. Already cases have been brought to my notice. When the proposed legislation is passed by the Senate we will be able to review the applications that have already been made.

page 87

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it is true that the Federal deficit for this financial year is likely to be $50m greater than the sum of $270m that was predicted when the Budget was introduced in August last. Can the Minister state what effect any such increase will have on the economy? What steps will be taken by the Government to offset this additional deficit, which, as I have indicated, will bring the total to $320m?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– If the honourable senator will be a little patient, on the 30th June next he will know all about the deficit and its size.

page 88

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator GAIR:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When may I expect the Senate to be given an opportunity to discuss a private member’s Bill which I obtained the leave of the Senate to introduce last year and which provides for an increased payment of child endowment to families with three or more children? Why has the matter been removed from the business sheet of the Senate? If it is suggested that it is because a new government has been formed following the election in November last, I cannot accept that as being a valid reason. In the case of the Senate, the November election was not a general election. It was an election to fill casual vacancies only so far as the Senate was concerned, and a decision of this Senate in connection with my application for leave to introduce the Bill. I believe, still stands.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The fact of the matter is that the Parliament was dissolved and when the Parliament is dissolved all items of business disappear from the notice paper and this week we start de novo. It now rests with the honourable senator to take whatever action he feels is necessary.

Senator Gair:

– The Senate was not dissolved.

Senator HENTY:

– The Parliament was.

page 88

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yesterday I asked the Minister for Customs and Excise whether the film ‘Viridiana’ was banned in Australia and, if it were, whether he would take steps to have the ban reconsidered. The Minister undertook to obtain an answer to this question. I. wonder whether he now has the answer in his possession.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, I have the answer, lt will reveal why I could be excused for not knowing yesterday the details about the film. The film is not being held by the Department of Customs and Excise. In fact, it was submitted to the Film Censorship Board in 1962. Because the importer at that time was not prepared to delete several scenes which the Censorship Board considered to be blasphemous and indecent, registration was refused. However, if the importer desires to resubmit the film to the Board for fresh consideration, it is his privilege and right to do so.

page 88

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister for Repatriation furnish details of the final salaries agreement ratified for nursing sisters at the Concord Repatriation Hospital? Can he also indicate the net loss of nursing sisters due to the delay in finalising this salary agreement?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– 1 can give the honourable senator some information about the first part of the question. Following the series of conferences between representatives of the Public Service Board, the Repatriation Department, the Australian Nursing Federation Employees Section and the Hospital Employees Federation, the two employee associations decided to go back to the Public Service Arbitrator with additional information for a variation of the rates of pay for nursing staff. On becoming aware of this move members of the nursing staff at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, who had submitted protest resignations, withdrew them.

The Public Service Arbitrator on 16th February 1967 handed down his decision. This increased the rates of pay for trained nursing staff by an amount of $40 per annum. The increase, together with the increase in salaries flowing from the recent interim margins case decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, has given increases to the base grade sister of $108 on the minimum and $114 on the maximum in addition to those given by the Public Service Arbitrator on 12th October last year. The total increases received by a sister, including the amount previously awarded by the Arbitrator, are $356 on the minimum and $221 on the maximum.

page 88

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate for information regarding casualties in Vietnam. I am wondering whether he can now give this information.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I now have the answer to the honourable senator’s question. As at 20th February 1967 total casualties from all causes amounted to 560. Of this number 96 were killed in action or died as a result of wounds or other causes, and 464 were wounded in action or became notifiable casualties through injury or other causes. The national service casualties included in those figures are 27 and 107 respectively.

page 89

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I present the following reports by the Tariff Board which do not call for any legislative action:

Felt-based floor coverings (Dumping and Subsidies)

Floor coverings of vinyl (Dumping and Subsidies)

Dichlorphenol (Dumping and Subsidies)

Parts and materials for ladies’ handbags (By-law)

X-ray film (Dumping and Subsidies)

Components and unmachined castings for pipeline valves (By-law Admission)

Single engined aeroplanes.

Pursuant to Statute I also present a

Special Advisory Authority report on -

Synthetic Resin Monofilaments for Brushware.

In addition I present a report by the Special Advisory Authority on Band-Pass Crystal Filters which does not call for any legislative action.

page 89

COMMITTEES

Motions (by Senator Henry) - by leave - agreed to:

Standing Orders Committee

That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, to consist of the President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Chairman of Committees, and Senators Cavanagh, Cormack, Cotton, Lacey, Tangney and Wright, with power to act during recess, and to confer with a similar Committee of the House of Representatives.

Printing Committee

That a Printing Committee be appointed, to consist of Senators Breen, Cant, Sir Walter Cooper, Davidson, Marriott, Ridley and Wheeldon, with power to confer or sit as a Joint Committee with a similar Committee of the House of Representatives.

page 89

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received letters from the

Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senators Davidson, Lawrie, Wood and Wright and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Bishop, Cavanagh and Devitt to be members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave - agreed to:

That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed, to consist of Senators Bishop, Cavanagh, Davidson, Devitt, Lawrie, Wood and Wright, such senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of standing order 36a.

page 89

QUESTION

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave: - proposed:

That a Library Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Bishop, Breen, Cant, Davidson, Lawrie and Mulvihill. with power to act during recess, and to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will accept the nomination of Senator Gair. A ballot will be required and will be held at 2.15 p.m. today.

page 89

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1967

Motion (by Senator Gorton) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Service Act 1922-1966 in relation to the Department of Education and Science.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science and Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

The Second and Third Schedules to the Public Service Act list, respectively, the departments which comprise the Commonwealth Service and the permanent heads of those departments. With the Government’s decision to establish a new Department of Education and Science, it is necessary to take action to amend the abovementioned Schedules. As honourable senators will be aware, action has already been taken, in accordance with the provisions of section 64 of the Constitution, formally to establish the new Department of Education and Science. It will be apparent to honourable senators, therefore, that the amendments proposed by this Bill are purely machinery ones. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 90

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 February (vide page 75), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Mr President, I oppose this Bill. It is said to arise out of the appointment of a Minister to administer the recently established Department of Education and Science. It is based further on the fact that Senator Gorton has been administering both the Department of Works and the new Department. The amendment would permit the continuation of the practice of having one Minister responsible for one department only.

The first matter to be clearly understood is that there is nothing in this Bill which either requires the creation of a new Department of Education and Science or in any way reflects upon it. The Bill with which we are dealing relates solely to the number of Ministers. There is no opposition from any quarter in this chamber to the appointment of a Minister for Education and Science or, for that matter, a Minister for Education or a Minister for Science. It. has been a longstanding part of the policy of the Australian Labor Party that there should be an appropriate Minister in respect of these fields.

Our policy is that a Commonwealth Department of Education be established and that there be a corresponding ministerial portfolio. We have gone further. We have said in the most specific terms:

The functions of this department would include the following:

To strengthen and enlarge the present activities of the Commonwaelth Office of Education, in connection with research, statistics and international co-operation, etc.

To support educational research through grants to universities and research institutes, the encouragement of national conferences, etc.

To administer educational grants, and be responsible for legislation.

To provide an administrative centre for various investigatory and advisory bodies such as the Australian Universities Commission, an Australian Education Council of Federal and State Ministers meeting frequently, a Standing Committee of Directors of Education and appropriate specialised panels.

Senator Wright:

– What is the honourable senator reading from?

Senator MURPHY:

-I am reading from the policy of the Australian Labor Party as it is found in the Federal Platform Constitution and Rules. It is a policy which, perhaps, ought to be in the hands of all members of the Government because the Australian Labor Party is frank enough to state in detail what it considers to be its policy. This policy has been evolved from the democratic decisions of the members of the Party and not from the influence of some obscure outside organisations which seem to determine the policy of the Liberal Party.

Senator Henty:

– The honourable senator would not be referring to the 36 faceless men, for instance, when he mentions his Party?

Senator MURPHY:

– If there are any faceless men they are those faceless men who apply pressure to the Government in matters such as trade practices to delay the trade practices legislation, water it down, and then prevent it from coming into operation. The less this Government says about faceless men, the better it will get on. We say:

This new Department should also be responsible for organising local and continuing inquiries into the whole range of educational problems for the purpose of:

providing a sound basis for concerted national educational policies.

promoting a greater and better informed public understanding and appreciation of educational matters.

We go even further and say:

These inquiries shall include such topics as:

educational finance and administration.

the training of teachers.

interstate co-operation and reciprocity.

the quality and supply of school textbooks.

the teaching of science at school.

technical education, viewed as a whole.

further education for adults.

teaching methods.

the education of non-academic children in secondary schools.

We have a well thought out and detailed policy in relation to the setting up of a Department of Education and an appropriate ministerial portfolio. In relation to science and technology the Labor Party’s policy is that there should be a Minister with direct responsibility for science and technology; that there should be parliamentary committees on science and technology; and that there should be an Australian Science Council. So, in respect of both of these matters, let there be no doubt whatever that the Australian Labor Party not only supports but proposes that there be direct ministerial responsibility for education and for science. Therefore, we present no opposition to a proposal to set up a Ministry of Education and Science, although we believe that Education and Science should be divided. We believe that there should be a Minister for Education and a Minister for Science.

But that is not the question at all. The setting up of such a Ministry is not dealt wilh in this Bill. The attitude of people who wanted to see such a Ministry set up but did nol want to do anything that would indicate opposition to such a Ministry might have presented a problem until this morning. A few minutes ago we saw the introduction of a Bill which, if carried - there is no indication of any opposition from any quarter if one looks at the policies of the parties - will provide for the establishment of a Ministry of Education and Science in the sense that it will provide for the setting up of a Department of Education and Science. A few minutes ago we saw the introduction of a Bill to amend the Public Service Act in relation to the Department of Education and Science. We know that action has already been taken, in accordance with section 64 of the Constitution, formally to establish the new Department. The Bill that has been introduced is a machinery one to deal with that. Under the Bill now before the Senate there is no question at all whether there is to be a Ministry of Education and Science. There is no question as to whether there is to be a Department of Education and Science. That is not the question in this Bill. The only question is: what is to be the number of Ministers? Are we to amend the enactment which provides that the number of Ministers shall not exceed twenty-five? If we do not do that and if the other Bill is carried - honourable senators may expect that it will be carried - there will be a statutory provision for the establishment of the Department of Education and Science and for the appointment of the appropriate Minister.

We do not need to concern ourselves here with any opposition to the establishment of such a Department and the appointment of such a Minister. The mandate which the Government received was for the establishment of such a department, and no more. The Prime Minister’s policy speech was set forth in print. After dealing with some aspects of education, he is reported on page seven as having said:

We believe the time hits come to establish a Commonwealth Ministry of Education and Science and we will do this.

This Ministry will be responsible nol only for education, but also For certain areas of scientific activity. CSIRO will function within the new Ministry.

That proposal will be carried into effect if the Bill providing for an amendment to the Public Service Act is passed. There was not a hint in that policy speech that the number of Ministers was to be increased. The policy of the Liberal Party as long ago as 1946 and 1947, if that was its name then, was to oppose the multiplication of Ministries and to suggest a consolidation of various departments in order that efficiency in government might be achieved. Mr Menzies, as he then was, was somewhat scathing about the retention of Ministries by the Chifley Government; he considered there should have been amalgamation and consolidation. There has been constant criticism not only in these chambers but. also throughout the community of tha retention of so many Ministries in respect of the defence departments. We have Ministers of Defence, Supply, Navy, Army and Air Force. Are these really necessary?

If the Government is to justify this Bill it can do so only on the basis that it needs twenty-six Ministers, that the statute which provides that the Ministry shall not exceed twenty-five is unduly hampering, that government cannot be carried out efficiently with only twenty-five Ministers and that there must be more than twenty-five. Let that be clear. The question is not whether there shall be a Minister for Education and Science. There is no opposition to that. The question is: how many Ministers must there be to ensure that government can be carried on efficiently? Are honourable senators on the Government side prepared to say that they cannot carry out the government of this country with only twentyfive Ministers? Is any Government supporter prepared to say that the existing departments cannot be carried on properly by twenty-five Ministers, including the Minister for Science and Education, and that there must be separate Ministers for the Army, Navy and Air Force, when in other countries one Minister is in charge of all those activities?

This Government has five separate ministers covering the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Department of Defence and the Department of Supply whereas in France with a population of 49 million and only eighteen ministers, only one minister is in charge of the activities covered by five ministers in Australia. Germany has a population of 57 million people, and has twenty-two ministers and one minister in charge of defence matters. Japan has a population of 98 million, and has nineteen ministers and one minister in charge of defence activities. Honourable senators are aware that Canada recently consolidated its defence departments. This is a world wide trend. Why do we need five ministers to control those departments separately? Why must there be separate ministerial responsibility? ls any honourable senator opposite prepared to say that another minister is necessary, that twenty-five ministers are not enough to carry out the required activities?

Why should there be a separate Minister for Repatriation when there is a Minister for Social Services? Both activities are really aspects of social services. Why should there be separate ministries in respect of the transport departments - the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Department of Civil Aviation? Does it not just lead to unnecessary duplication in areas which could well be brought together in the interests of efficient government? Why must we go on multiplying the number of ministries every time it is considered that there should be a new responsibility? Does there not come a time for cutting down as well as a time for enlarging? Have we not long passed the time when the number of ministries should have been cut down in the interests of efficient government?

All honourable senators are aware that when a ministry is created, the matter does not end there. There is a whole new operation. A whole new staff is appointed and Parkinson’s Law begins to function. An empire is created. It starts off as a little empire and builds up to a bigger and bigger empire. The view of the Opposition is that this should not be done. The creation of ministries to deal properly with government may involve the setting up of not only the Ministry of Science and Education, but we believe that there ought to be a consolidation and amalgamation of other departments. Certainly the Department of Territories in relation to its responsibilities in the north could well be wrapped up in a Department of Northern Development with an appropriate minister.

We consider that there ought to be a separate ministry and a separate department covering science and technology so that the ministry and the department can be related to the realities of modern life. New responsibilities and new areas of society call for action by the Government. We should not be stuck with the ministries which were created for other situations and are carried on now just to suit the necessities of handing out plums to various people as rewards which have been promised so that the Government parties can settle their problems of who is to be rewarded for this and that. This is not the way that government should be carried on. An examination ought to be made of these responsibilities and the superfluous departments ought to be stripped out. There ought to be an amalgamation - a consolidation - and the Government could easily do it within the present number of twentyfive Ministers.

That is the issue in this debate, not any question as to whether there should be a Ministry of Education and Science. The question is whether the necessities of Government demand that there must be more than twenty-five Ministers. Because we do not believe that the Government needs more than twenty-five Ministers to carry on the responsibilities which it said it will undertake; we oppose the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am in complete agreement with a great deal of what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has said, but I support the Bill for the determining reason, in my mind, that the people have voted on this subject after a clear declaration by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) at the polls that his proposals to be put before the Parliament included the appointment of an additional minister. I interpret the policy speech in that sense. Senator Murphy takes a different view. But I think that when it was announced that a new Ministry of Education and Science would be established it was clearly to be understood, regrettable as it is, that that involved a numerical increase in the Ministry. t am also influenced by the fact that the constitution of the Ministry is one peculiarly for the executive government and that that is a matter in which the ministry of the day should be given a fairly free hand. 1 hope that Senator Murphy will carry his argument into the forceful field of activity in this chamber and challenge the growing number of the bureaucracy and the expenditure on it and also inquire into its efficiency, because it is time that this trend was arrested. But I do not think it is appropriate that the Senate should reject this Bill after the emphatic endorsement of the general policy, including as it does this particular proposition, by the people as a whole.

I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not advert to the constitutional position involved in this Bill, especially after the thoughtful references that were made in his own speech yesterday and in the speeches of other honourable senators regarding Federal-State financial relations. This situation is solely an emanation from the predominance of the financial power that the Commonwealth has acquired and annexed, lt is solely because of this predominance of financial power that the Commonwealth is able to extend its financial responsibilities into these fields. This Bill has come before us for debate directly after we have heard the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) read his second reading speech upon the Public Service Bill. The terms of that speech are such as to fill me with dismay. In my view, the summary and abrupt nature of that speech is almost a contempt of Parliament whose assent to the Bill is being sought. I would think that before one or other of these Bills is given approval we should concern ourselves with the scope of this Department of Education and Science.

It has been a long standing proposition on the part of the States that education is one of the fields of service in which the States continue to have a peculiar and important responsibility. 1 have found that all State governments are jealous of their responsibilities in education. Post-war the Commonwealth created the Commonwealth Office of Education to deal with education in its Territories. In the post-war period we have given money to assist university education and now technological education. We have used it as a political field to advance the cause of independent schools as well as other schools from the point of view of capital assistance. That all stems from the Commonwealth’s financial power. 1 am not a technocrat in this respect, and I would have no real affection for the legalisms of the Constitution. We must obey the constitution of a country in substance, but here we have a direct intrusion into the field of education, which is a State sphere of activity. Why is this? It is because we have the money to spend on education. Section 96 of the Constitution gives the Parliament power to exercise control over education by imposing conditions on the financial assistance that we give. I am one of those who believes that in the course of the present decade the demands upon educational requirements in this country have to be satisfied: It is a good thing that if Parliament has surplus money that money should be devoted to assist education. But I think it is well that we should discuss and consider whether we are taking a deliberate step or whether we are just drifting into an area of unconstitutional authority which is the jealous preserve of the States.

For my part 1 have no affection - no inward affection - for the old idea of State sovereignty and State rights regarding finance. [ warred that, campaign for thirteen years after 1946, but then in .1959 the State Premiers of their own volition and for a miserable extra £20m surrendered their birthright and agreed to the financial arrangements of 1959 which wrote the finish’ to the idea that the Commonwealth was not to retain its income taxing powers and that the income taxing powers should be one and indivisible. For my part, 1 would no longer have the taxpayers of the country vexed by two taxing authorities, whether fringe or principal, in any respect. But of course there are other remedies.

Let me see what is meant by ‘science’. As I understand it, there are some fields of scientific interest in which the Commonwealth has legislative power. There is the defence field and the aviation field as it relates to interstate trade. The Commonwealth has an interest in science, but what is meant by the Ministry of Science? Is it simply to propagate research into science and the establishment of teaching institutions, or is it the practical application of science and the promotion of institutions where science is actually applied to the production of this, that and the other?

I hope 1 do not detain the Senate idly in discussing these matters. We were told in the Governor-General’s Speech that the Government was considering a constitutional referendum. This morning the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) did not give me any information as to whether the Government had yet concluded its consideration of a piffling amendment on which it is proposed to take the trouble and expense of going before the country. This Parliament constituted a committee of representatives of all parties which deliberated between 1956 and 1959 and which was led by the Attorney-General of the day. Among the matters in relation to which it recommended constitutional amendment were nuclear energy and other fields of science which are growing in importance. But instead of dealing with those matters, we just nibble at the crumbs - such as the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives - around the dark corners of the table. We overlook other matters which in recent months, because of our present constitutional arrangements, have been subjects of political turmoil. Aviation is one such matter. Honourable senators will recall the imbroglio in New South Wales nine months ago. War has a direct connection with science and nuclear energy. What power has the Commonwealth to legislate in regard to nuclear energy and other aspects of science, including agricultural science? I say these things with sentiments that are indicated by my attitude to the Bill, and with a desire to seek refuge from difference whenever judgment Wl permit. At the same time I. lament the pusillanimity, the insignificance, of the outlook that permits great constitutional problems which demand deliberative solution by the people in the only way that our Constitution provides to remain unsolved but which leads us to peddle such futile matters as the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives just because electoral seats are involved.

I have had seventeen years experience in the Senate. After consultation with Ministers and cx-Ministers of the Senate, I believe the time has come when we should consider to what degree the functions of this House are discharged by the presence of Ministers here as distinct from the adoption of a system under which the Senate could elect its own committee of managers and every legislative proposal submitted to it could be brought in by a Minister from the other House with the full right to debate the measure in this place. I have indicated support for that point of view now for ten or twelve years. Some people will attribute to me a sense of disappointment and will say that it is a display of sour grapes. All these things are ligitimate reflections. 1 am a miserable example of humanity: I am only a man. 1 just mention these things because I want people to know that 1 am aware of them. If other people govern themselves by such motives, they will be able to judge whether 1 do so.

Once a person becomes a member of a ministry, he is bound to accept the majority viewpoint and to advocate it in the Parliament. Otherwise he must resign from the Ministry. The situation in which an individual member of the Parliament is placed is precisely the opposite. On the floor of the House he is bound to speak not for the Government but for the people. This Senate, constitutionally elected on the basis of adult suffrage, enjoys an almost unique position amongst upper Houses. It enjoys a constitutional role which possibly is second only to that of the Senate of the United States of America. It would be greatly advantaged if it were to adopt an attitude to legislation which was not affected by the presence of members of the Ministry who were pledged, whatever may be the nature of the debate in this reviewing chamber, to support that legislation. My advocacy in relation to this matter has been restrained, because people are prone to say that such advocacy arises from jaundice. I like a peaceful life.

Having failed in this direction, 1 turn to another alternative which in logic is inevitable and which, despite its provocativeness, should be asserted. The Senate should consider it within the near future and decide whether to insist upon it. When Labor went out of office and ceased to be the target of the virulent criticism of an increase in the size of the Ministry which the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, expressed, this Government, started the activity of proliferation and so the number of Ministers grew. In 1946 authority was given for the size of the Ministry to be fixed at nineteen. If this Bill is passed, since 1949 the number will have increased from nineteen to twenty-six.

Senator Branson:

– - But the number of Ministers in the Senate has not increased.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Ever since 1941 the number of Ministers in the Senate has been five. To my mind that indicates acceptance of a subordinate role by this House, if we intend to allow the size of the Ministry to be increased and if we agree that the Ministry should be represented in this chamber, why do we not require the number of Ministers who sit in this chamber to be increased proportionately? In. my judgment (his is not the proper occasion on which to push that view to a decision. But I. reproach the Senate for its failure to accept one or other of the two propositions 1 have advanced and which must inevitably bc accepted in logic.

Senator Marriott:

– How could the Senate enforce that?

Senator WRIGHT:

– It could do so in a number of ways which are altogether too numerous to be adverted to in a reply to my friend’s interjection. There will be other opportunities for friendly discussion in which we can all join and which will bring the matter to a decision.

I content myself with those reflections upon the constitutional drift, upon the way in which we devote ourselves to the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives and the way in which we spend money on u referendum when the efficiency of activity in the fields of nuclear energy, aviation and trade practices is threatened for want of constitutional definition. As I said earlier, we let the Ministry proliferate and allow five Ministers in this chamber, who formerly represented fourteen Ministers in another place, now to represent twenty-one. If it is sound to argue that the increasing complexity of governmental activity demands a greater number ot Ministers in another place, the need for a proportionate increase in the number of Ministers in this chamber becomes obvious. So, Mr President, ungrudgingly - the Government having received the people’s endorsement of a proposal that I deplore, that is to say the proliferation of Ministers now to twenty-six, altogether an unnecessary number - ungrudgingly with those qualifications I shall vote for the Bill.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Australian Labor Party is opposed to this Bill because it believes that in introducing the Bill the Government is involving the people of Australia in a gross extravagance for meaningless grandeur. We believe that Australia probably now has one of the largest ministries of any country in the world and an examination of the distribution of portfolios amongst the Ministers in the Australian Cabinet and Ministry shows that this distribution of portfolios is completely unjustified, completely extravagant, a waste of time and a waste of money.

Before 1 deal with this in some detail, I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by Senator Wright with which I for one completely agree. I believe that the approach of the Government towards the representation of the Senate in the Ministry shows a complete contempt for this chamber and a complete inadequacy of approach to the relationship between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Many people would argue - I believe that there may be some justification for this argument although I personally do not support it - that there should be no Ministers at all in the Senate, that the Senate should be wholly a house of review. Northern Ireland has a bicameral legislature, and there are no Ministers in the Senate but merely a Minister representing the Government who apparently explains the Government’s point of view to that chamber.

If we look at the record of the representation of senators in Australian ministries since Federation, we find some very extraordinary things. We find, for example, that in the administration of Sir George Reid in 1904 - at that time the Cabinet and the Ministry were coextensive - out of eight Ministers two were senators. Over the years the proportion of senators in the Ministry increased, so that in the Curtin Ministry of 1943 out of nineteen Ministers five were senators. Now, in 1967, it is proposed that with the proportion of senators to members of the House of Representatives remaining approximately the same, only five senators should be Ministers out of a total Ministry of twenty-six. I agree completely with Senator Wright that we say either that the Senate is to be coextensive in its powers within the House of Representatives - as under the Constitution it approximately is - in which case there should be a proportionate number of senators in the Cabinet and the Ministry, or there should be no senators in the Ministry whatsoever. But the Senate is grossly under-represented in the Ministry. Five Ministers in the Senate are supposed to represent twenty-one Ministers in the House of Representatives and give answers to questions in the Senate relating to the departments whose Ministers they represent.

Anybody only has to listen to question time in the Senate to see just what a hopeless proposition that is and how virtually impossible it is to get any sort of answer, certainly to a question without notice, relating to departments whose twenty-one Ministers are sitting in another place. But V do not want to deal with that matter any further. What I wish to do now is compare the grandiloquent Government that we have in Australia with the governments that exist in some other countries.

Let us look at Belgium, for example, a country with a population approximately equivalent to that of Australia. Here I think it should be pointed out that Belgium does not have a federal system. In Australia, in addition to all of the Ministers whom we have in the Federal Parliament, we have another 100 or so in State parliaments. Belgium has no State parliaments and it has a total Ministry of twenty.

Senator Branson:

– It is a much smaller country.

Senator WHEELDON:

– The population is approximately the same as that of Australia. The area is smaller, but there are not any State Ministers to handle the problems of different areas. All of the Ministers are in the national parliament. Austria, with a smaller population than Australia, has only twelve Ministers. There the Ministry constitutes the Cabinet. West Germany, with a population of over 50 million has a total Cabinet and Ministry of nineteen, compared with the proposed twenty-six in this country. France, also without a federal system, has a total Ministry of twenty-one. Sweden has a total Ministry of sixteen. If one looks at the United States of America, with its 200 million people, one finds that the Cabinet, including the President, totals twelve, less than one-half of the Ministry that is needed in Australia. The United States apparently finds that it can function with twelve Ministers whereas in Australia we need to have twenty-six.

Senator Gair:

– lt can function with one representative in the National Parliament for 355,000 people, but you want to increase the number in this Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I should like now to refer to the Ministers in the Swedish Parliament. I believe that the departments that exist in Sweden would be quite adequate to deal with the needs of the Australian people. The Swedish Ministry consists of the Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Social Affairs, Minister of Defence - he deals with all the defence departments - Minister of Justice, Minister of Communications, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Commerce, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Education - Sweden includes a Minister of Education as a full Minister despite its much smaller Cabinet - Minister of Finance, Minister of Civil Service, and four Ministers without portfolios.

The United States of America finds itself capable of functioning with a President, a Secretary of State - he is equivalent to a Minister for External Affairs - Secretary oi the Treasury, Secretary of Defence, Attorney-General, Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labour, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development. That is all that is needed in the United States.

In Australia we find that contrary to the developments that are taking place throughout the rest of the world - if one looks at Canada one finds that only one Minister is required to deal with all matters relating to defence - we have not only a Minister for Defence but also a Minister for the Army, a Minister for Air, a Minister for the Navy, and a Minister for Supply who himself is largely dealing with defence matters. We have five Ministers to deal with matters which in the United States are dealt with by one Minister, and I do not think that the armed forces of Australia are five times as large as the armed forces of the United States. In Australia wc have a Minister for Trade and Industry and a separate Minister for Customs and Excise. It is completely beyond me, and I have never been able to understand since 1 have been here, how the Minister for Customs and Excise can function without the direction of the Minister for Trade and Industry. lt seems to me to be quite absurd to suggest that the Minister for Customs and Excise should bc proceeding along a separate line from that of the Minister for Trade and Industry. This is clearly a case where two departments could be amalgamated. What justification is there for having a separate Minister for Health, a separate Minister for Social Services, and a separate Minister for Repatriation? Clearly, if we are to have any co-ordination in our social welfare policy there should be one Minister responsible for all of these departments. There may well be an argument for having undersecretaries, possibly parliamentary undersecretaries, to deal with individual requirements in the field of social services, but equally clearly one Minister should be responsible for the general broad policy relating to these questions. We believe that the gross increase in the number of Ministers not only shows disrespect for the Senate but also is probably a pay-off for services rendered by certain members of the Government, for certain loyalties, for certain little duties that they have performed over the years. But in this case no benefit will be derived by the Australian people. This move shows an extravagance which is not shown in any other country so far as I know, lt is contrary to the tendencies in many coun tries which are rationalising and amalgamating departments. For that reason, the Opposition is opposed to the Bill.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– The Bill, which is designed to increase the Ministry by one, gives me very, grave concern. Personally, I am very strongly opposed to increasing the number of Ministers by one. The trend which has developed in recent years has to be stopped. I have studied the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) and have found that probably it can be inferred from his speech that there is a right to appoint another Minister - a Minister for Education. The argument can be used, but I believe it is specious.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Can that reasonably be inferred from what the Prime Minister said?

Senator WOOD:

– 1 do not know that it is a solid argument, but it is one that can be used. It can be said that that is implied in the speech. In those circumstances one is put in a very difficult position. I propose to state my views on this matter. So far, we have heard three speeches on the Bill in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) gave an excellent statement of his views and, like Senator Wright, 1 find myself greatly in sympathy with what he said. Senator Wright has given us a great deal of food for thought and has made suggestions relevant to this matter with regard to the Senate. We are indebted to Senator Wheeldon for his survey of the position in other parliaments and Ministries. His speech was most illuminating and illustrated the grandiose ideas we have developed in Australia. It gives me concern that it is my own Government, or the Government 1 support, which is moving along this grandiose way at an accelerated rale.

As has been stated in this debate, when a Liberal-Country Party Government was elected in 1949 we had nineteen Ministers. Several years ago, the number was increased to the present twenty-five. Now is is proposed to increase the number to twenty-six. When we compare that number with the numbers given by Senator Wheeldon for other countries we must conclude that we are over ministered in the Australian Parliament. Senator Wheeldon brought out the important point that many other countries do not have State governments, with Ministers, as we do. We have six State governments, with Ministers, whereas other countries have only one parliament - a federal parliament.

Senator Branson:

– It makes it easier, does it not, if you do not have State Ministers?

Senator WOOD:

– It is a pretty crook argument to say that because of the existence of State Ministers our Federal Government should have twenty-six Ministers when the United States has only twelve. K the United States with a population many times larger than- ours can carry onwith twelve Ministers, it indicates that we have an outbreak of ministerial disease. It suggests to me that there could be a reconstruction of the Ministry and a re-allocation or combination of portfolios. This matter should bc tackled not in an obstructive way but remembering that an increase in the Ministry will cost the people a large amount of money. An increase in the Ministry does not involve only the salary of a new Minister. Around the Minister there is built a body of public servants, and the cost grows and grows as the years go by. We could find this a very costly business indeed.

It is simply not true to say that some portfolios could not be amalgamated. Let us go back into recent history. When Sir Garfield Barwick was Attorney-General, he was also Minister for External Affairs; yet he was one of the easiest Ministers in the Government to see. He never gave the impression that he was rushed. He never pushed you out. He never gave you the impression that you were an absolute pest in coming to see him. He was most courteous, and he gave you time. Sir Garfield Barwick had two portfolios, and that of External Affairs took him out of the country On many occasions.

Senator Branson:

– Not often enough.

Senator WOOD:

– Whether it was often enough or not, at least he was not like the stuffy little Minister for External Affairs that we have today, who seems to think that the people of Australia should not have any information.

Senator Branson:

Mr Deputy President, I resent that reference to a Minister of the Crown and ask that it be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Wood, Senator Branson has asked that the reference to the Minister be withdrawn.

Senator WOOD:

– I will not withdraw. I am just pressing the point-

Senator Branson:

– I insist.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I suggest to Senator Wood that he frame his remarks in more temperate terms.

Senator WOOD:

– What 1 am trying to point out-

Senator Branson:

Mr Deputy President, I feel that Senator Wood has evaded my request. The words be used were offensive to me and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Senator WOOD:

– What words?

Senator Branson:

– That a stuffy little person is occupying the position of Minister for External Affairs.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I asked Senator Wood to put his remarks in more temperate terms. I think he is about to do so.

Senator WOOD:

– After that hullabaloo, I repeat that when Sir Garfield Barwick was Attorney-General he was also Minister for External Affairs but carried out his duties in such a way that he was able to give members of the Parliament reasonable time when they wanted to interview him. That shows that more portfolios could be amalgamated.

Senator Branson:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Wood has not done what you requested.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Wood has not finished his speech yet. I suggest we allow him to proceed.

Senator WOOD:

– I want to refer to another case. Honourable senators will remember that in the previous Labor Administration, the Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, was not only Prime Minister but also Treasurer of the Commonwealth. That is an indication that some people are capable of administering more than one portfolio. Irrespective of whether we agree with Mr Chifley in the matter of running Australia, I think we agreed that as Prime Minister he was a very able administrator and that as

Treasurer he devoted considerable attention to his duties. There we find another striking example of two portfolios that were amalgamated. 1 think, as was pointed out by Senator Wright, that in the building up of the Ministry that all the new appointees have been members of the House of Representatives. I would not want to be a Minister in the Senate with the present set-up. I am sorry for Ministers in this chamber because (hey are required to handle so many portfolios in this place. This job has been placed upon them without any regard or thought for them. This makes the job a very difficult one for them. When the number of Ministers in the House of Representatives is increased, one wonders what the feeling of the Government is towards the Senate and the Senate Ministers, i say this as one who is not used to running around palavering people: I find Ministers in this chamber, as a body, have as much common sense as the Ministers in the House of Representatives. I believe that the representation that we have had in the Ministry is not such that the Government should regard the Senate Ministers as not being capable of doing as well as, if not better than, Ministers in the House of Representatives. 1 am one of those who believe that the Senate, being a house of review, should be a House without Ministers. The situation is that the Senate does have Ministers. If the number of Ministers is to be increased, in fairness the proportion of Senate Ministers to House of Representatives Ministers should be reasonable. However, we find that this citadel is being set up in the House of Representatives. Apparently the Government believes that all the brains are there. It is from the House of Representatives that the new appointees are drawn. To me a very serious point arises in this regard. Let me say that although I do not know what other people might feel about the matter, I think that there is a technique in building up this big Ministry. The Prime Minister surrounds himself with a great body of Ministers. The greater the body of Ministers that the Prime Minister has around him, the greater the support he has against any individual or collection of individuals, be they senators or members of another place, who may desire to make some alteration to a proposal or do something different from that which the Prime Minister proposes. The Prime Minister has his citadel of Ministers around him. This makes it very difficult indeed for people outside the Ministry to gather a majority to sway the Prime Minister or his Ministers.

Senator Hannaford:

– Does the honourable senator not think that the new Minister might help northern development?

Senator WOOD:

– The point I am getting at is that I feel that this is something that can be detrimental to the true functions of democracy. I am of the opinion that there is a technique in the building up of this great array of Ministers around the Prime Minister. It is a matter of bolstering the Prime Minister’s own opinion with his Ministry against what might be the opinion of a reasonable number of the Government’s private members. So, I am very strongly opposed to this increase in the size of the Ministry. I feel that, as has been mentioned, we are reaching such a grandiose scale in this regard that the position is becoming outlandish. When we remind ourselves of the figures submitted to the Senate by Senator Wheeldon, I think we have to recognise that we have not only too many parliamentarians already but also that we have far too many Ministers. In this Federal sphere we are outpacing everybody else in making that surplus even greater.

Like Senator Wright, we see other moves as far as the Senate is concerned. There is no question that there is very direct evidence that another attempt is being made to circumvent and to cut short the powers and the rights of the Senate by way of the proposed referendum which, if carried, would break the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives. May I say this: as far as I am concerned anything that I can do at any time to stop this outrageous proposed increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives, if the referendum were carried, I will do publicly and everywhere else. One of the most disturbing features of this new intention to hold the referendum, whether there are grounds for it or not, is that it has been freely stated that if the referendum is carried - it has not a dog’s chance of being carried - there would be more members and, as a result, more Ministers in the

House of Representatives. I am not supporting the Opposition’s proposal to reject the Bill on this occasion because there is the possible interpretation that the Prime Minister intended to convey to the people of Australia that he would increase the Ministry by one appointment - a specious one - but it is possible. I want the Government to know now that if there is any further move to increase the size of the Ministry while I am in this chamber, I will certainly oppose any further efforts to increase the burden on the Commonwealth of Australia which is already overburdened because of the number of Commonwealth Ministers it has.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

page 100

QUESTION

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate will now proceed to a ballot to select members of the Library Committee. (The bells having been rung)

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - There are seven candidates for the six vacancies; namely, Senators Bishop, Breen, Cant, Davidson, Gair, Lawrie and Mulvihill. The Clerks at the Table will hand a ballot paper to each honourable senator. Honourable senators will vote by striking out the name of one of the candidates. I invite Senators Henty, Murphy and Turnbull to act as scrutineers. (A ballot having been taken)

The PRESIDENT:

– The voting figures in the ballot were: Senator Bishop 50: Senator Davidson 50; Senator Mulvihill 49; Senator Lawrie 49; Senator Breen 48: Senator Gair 28 and Senator Cant 26. I therefore declare Senators Bishop. Breen, Davidson, Gair, Lawrie and Mulvihill to have been chosen to serve as members of the Library Committee. The question now is:

That a Library Committee be appointed to consist of the President and Senators Bishop, Breen, Davidson, Gair, Lawrie and Mulvihill, with power to act during the recess and to confer or sit as a joint committee with similar committees of the House of Representatives.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 100

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– Flushed with victory, I rise to make my contribution to the debate on this Bill which commenced in this chamber this morning and to which I have listened very attentively. Without question, most of the arguments used by honourable senators on both sides have been directed against the Bill, on the ground that there is no warrant or necessity for an additional Minister. My own inclination is to oppose the Bill for that reason and also because I have been conscious for a long time, as I believe the Australian people are conscious, of the necessity to arrest the rapid increase in the cost of government and in the size of the Public Service. As a result of my long experience in a State Cabinet I have some knowledge of what can happen with Cabinets, Cabinet Ministers and (he growth of the Public Service.

Like other speakers, principally Senator Wright and Senator Wood, I am opposed to this Bill in principle, because I wonder whether there is a warrant for it. However, unlike Senator Wood and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), I cannot accept that the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt), when promising in his policy speech that he would create a new Department of Education and Science, did not imply that there would be an additional Minister. I know from experience that Premiers and Prime Ministers do not create new departments without creating new Ministers. Therefore, I cannot attach very much importance to that argument. I dismiss it as having little or no value.

I am concerned, however, about the necessity for the Government to do something - and do it pretty smartly - to arrest the drift that has taken place in the cost of government. Senator Wheeldon went to great pains in his research, for which he has been commended, and learnt that in America there are fewer Federal Ministers than in Australia. But how inconsistent is he? I interjected when he was speaking about the Ministry. I suppose it was appropriate that he should refer to that and perhaps less appropriate that I should remind him that in the National Parliament of the United States there is one representative for every 355,000 persons. Yet he and his Party are committed to support a referendum for an increase in the numbers of the House of Representatives of this Parliament, in which the average representation of each member is about 67,000 people. By the term ‘people’ 1 mean men, women and children. The statistics will show that of those 67,000 people, 50% are under twentyone years of age. When the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, introduced the legislation to provide for the referendum he referred to 80,000. I believe that he deliberately failed to identify them as people or electors, whereas in fact they are people and slightly fewer than half of that number are under twentyone years of age.

This morning the Press carried the announcement that the present Government under the leadership of Mr Harold Holt again proposes to squander money on this referendum which has no hope in the world of being carried by the Australian people because they subscribe to my view that we are overgoverned already. They have to be satisfied that the additional expenditure is warranted. Already almost $200,000 has gone down the drain - to use a colloquial term - because of the postponement of the referendum. In answer to questions I received the belated answer that an amount of §192,518 has already been spent in this connection. We are to have now another exercise in spending the taxpayers’ money on an unwarranted object.

We are debating now the size of the Ministry. I want to be fair and I must confess that I cannot presume to know the quantum of work involved in the various departments. I can make only a rough assessment and I must be guided by others who have more intimate knowledge of the departments than I have. 1 would think that today some departments could be amalgamated with advantage. Honourable senators know that when a new minister is appointed, his salary is not the beginning and end of the expenditure incurred. Around him grow officers of the department and with them grows additional expenditure in the form of allowances, travelling costs, cars and all the incidental costs which amount to so much.

I have had a lot to do with the Public Service in the State in which I served, and also outside it. I have a very high regard for public servants in the main, but as in every garden, they have a lot of weeds amongst them. The weeds creep in and their numbers increase; some because of political patronage, others because of the desire of a top officer to build up the department’s strength in order to influence his Minister by the growth of the department. That goes on.

I have heard a humorous story about a Minister in an early Labour Government who was approached by one of his outofwork constituents. His constituent was unskilled and the Minister for Transport - or the Minister for Railways - referred him to the Commissioner of Railways. The Commissioner referred him to the General Manager and the General Manager referred him to the Chief Stationmaster. The Chief Stationmaster scratched his head because he did not know where to place the man. Finally he equipped him with a can of Brasso and a couple of chamois cloths and said to him: ‘1 want you to help the fellow whose job it is to look after the brassware on the station. I want you to keep the taps and all the other brassware clean.’ A month or two elapsed and a man in a similar plight approached the Minister. He was sent through the same channels and after being equipped by the Chief Stationmaster with a can of Brasso and a couple of chamois cloths, he followed the first fellow around. Subsequently the first fellow met the Minister and said to him: ‘I don’t want that job. I am surprised at you doing this to me. I never thought that you would, have done that to me, Jack. You give me a job, and then you put a bloke on to spy on me.’ On studying the figures showing the increases in the numbers of public servants 1 wonder whether a lot of people are employed to spy on others.

To return to the subject of the Ministry: in the days of Chifley there were as many Federal Ministers as there are today. That might surprise or astound some Australian Labor Party senators. The number was subsequently reduced by one because of the amalgamation of two departments. So it is plain that the ALP cannot make out a good case on this question of numbers.

Senator Wright:

– I do not think those figures are correct. I interject only because the honourable senator may want to check them. My information is that the Ministry did not exceed nineteen.

Senator GAIR:

– Is that so? Unless my information is incorrect the ALP record on this subject of extra departments is worth looking at. In 1 945 the Chifley Government had more departments than the Holt Government has today.

Senator Wheeldon:

– More departments, but not more Ministers.

Senator GAIR:

– Ministers, too.

Senator Ormonde:

– That was in the Gair Government.

Senator GAIR:

– That was the most efficient and progressive Labor Government that Queensland has ever had. At the two elections that Gair led a Labor Government, it received more than 55% of the total votes of the people.

Senator Murphy:

– I think the honourable senator’s figures are wrong.

Senator GAIR:

– If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. On my information the number was twenty-six and was reduced to twenty-five.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Never twenty-six Ministers.

Senator GAIR:

– If there were not, there must have been something wrong with caucus, because 1 know and Pat Kennelly knows that if there were departments there were Ministers.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The honourable senator used to support them.

Senator GAIR:

– I did, until they went wrong. I am conscious of the industrial growth of the country and of the Commonwealth services, but the geographical dimensions have not altered. I appreciate that the services given by the Commonwealth have increased greatly, particularly since the time of the Chifley Government when it invaded the domain of the States, especially in the fields of labour and social services. I am not questioning the advisability or wisdom of it, but I am saying that when the Chifley Government came into power and took over the responsibilities for labour and social services, naturally Commonwealth services grew.

At the present time the Commonwealth has 290,000 employees and the State governments have 570,000 employees. This number represents over 20% of the entire Australian workforce and I can assure honourable senators that it is a growing army. Between 1939 and 1961 the number of Commonwealth public servants increased by 230%. The truth is that the cost of government is becoming an unbearable burden on the general taxpayer. Whether or not we can escape it I do not know, but I think that there is a grave responsibility on the Government of this country, irrespective of its political beliefs, to have a look at this matter to see whether Australia with a population of 11,500,000 can carry what we are being asked to bear. The second reading speech refers to an increase of $6,000 in the annual amount set aside for Ministers’ salaries, but that is only the start. lt will not be long before the new Department will grow and grow. It will remind one of the Ministers, about whom 1 have told the Senate, who gave a fellow a job in the railways cleaning taps. He himself said: My experience is that if you give the average public servant’ - this was in the days before the introduction of biro pens - “a blotting pad, an ink well and a couple of pens, he will be an under secretary within twelve months. He will build a staff around himself, he will justify an increased classification and he will justify titles.’ A public servant is very competent at doing that. I have never seen a public servant make out a bad case for an increased classification. It usually reads like a romance - what he has achieved and what he is competent to do.

I have no intention, nor is it my desire, to cast any aspersions on the Public Service as a whole. I am just warning the Government. I think it should be appraised of the tendency towards a growth in the number of public servants. Ministers can become very gullible under the influence of plausible, genial, smiling public servants. The public servant says: ‘Mr Minister, I think that we could do with additional staff here’. The Minister says: ‘Whatever you say is all right with me’. That suits the Minister because his importance is raised by the number of staff he has under him. Of course, it is not intended that a Minister should be very concerned about the relative duties of public servants, but 1 believe he has a moral obligation to be satisfied that every man and woman on his staff is fully occupied.

Senator McKellar:

– I must be unique. I have reduced the number on my staff.

Senator GAIR:

– It is good to be unique in some things. Probably it is because, as often happens, the Minister has delegated his power to someone else. He has probably set up tribunals and other bodies that have taken the responsibility from him. He was in a position to reduce his staff, but the staff of these bodies might be increasing.

Senator McKellar:

– That did not happen either.

Senator GAIR:

– I am glad to hear that. 1 repeat that I am and have been for a long time very conscious of the necessity for the Government to be more active in arresting this trend. In 1938 there were 68.500 Commonwealth public servants. In 1961 there were 225,900 and in 1966 282,900. It is not only the Commonwealth that is increasing the number of its public servants. The States are in a similar position. The number of employees in the State Public Services has risen from 513,800 to 568.S00. The governments may be able to justify the increase, but there are a great number of people outside the government services who are asking just how much can we bear.

Primarily I am opposed to an increase in the Ministry. I believe that if Cabinet had slopped to think it would have amalgamated some of the departments. However, I speak as leader of a party that has been always very conscious of the necessity for education and has looked to the Commonwealth to enter the field and give some aid in the matter. We have known full well that, because of increased population, an altered attitude of parents towards education and the increased standard of living which permitted parents to keep their children at school the burden of education was one that the States alone could not bear. I say that the question of education is of major national importance and that the Commonwealth cannot escape from accepting its measure of responsibility.

The Commonwealth Government has entered the field of education and has provided considerable assistance. In the State from which I come, we have always had - and when I say ‘always’ 1 mean we have had it for many years - a scholarship system that is unique in Australia. It provided for tuition fees for children in any approved secondary school from the primary level to the junior level, as we call it - it is called the intermediate level in some States. It gave further scholarships providing tuition fees from the junior or intermediate level to the leaving or senior level, as we call it. We have always provided these scholarships. They have been provided on a qualifying basis, but the examinations have never been very difficult. In the early stage children received extension scholarships and went on to higher education. Children in other States did not receive such scholarships. We were always conscious of the necessity to provide the wherewithall for the boy and girl of working class people to go on to higher education.

The Commonwealth scheme that exists at the present time, which is aimed at providing funds for children of the working class people - the less affluent section of the public - to go on to higher education, was initially introduced in a policy speech which I, as Leader of the Queensland Labor Party, delivered in 1957. My party has always been concerned about education. In my policy speech before the last election I said:

Our future will depend partly on whether we can succeed in educating our people in the new technology and partly on whether as a result of that development in human resources we can contribute more to the economic growth of South East Asia.

I remind the Government that orderly progress in education requires the active support of two systems - the private system and the public system - and of two governmental authorities - the State governments and, the Federal Government.

More funds need to be spent on both the private and the public systems. The only real source of those funds is the Federal Government. That is why I welcome the decision of the Government to establish the Department of Education and Science. What the Democratic Labor Party has done has been to attempt to induce the Federal Government to be more practical and realistic in its approach to education. It is all right to evince a lot of interest in universities and tertiary education. That is good; it is grand. But it is equally important that the Commonwealth Government, in co-operation with the States, should evince greater interest in primary education. If our primary education fails, we will not have very much need for tertiary education or for universities. For years our State primary systems have been very richly supplemented by independent schools. The time has arrived when the independent schools have found the financial strain to be too great, with the result that they are unable to provide accommodation for the children who seek admission to those schools. Consequently, children in the State controlled schools-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! I suggest that the honourable senator should come back to the terms of the Bill.

Senator GAIR:

– I am dealing with the Bill, ls not education involved?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. We are dealing with the. appointment of a new Minister.

Senator GAIR:

– I am telling the new Minister what he should pay close attention to if we are to avoid chaos in education. I propose to tell him how he can save a lot of the taxpayers’ money. If the new Minister decided to make a contribution of $30 a year for each child educated in independent, primary schools and $50 a year for each child educated in independent secondary schools, he would save the States and the Commonwealth a lot of money. My survey of the position in 1966 showed that the average cost to State governments to educate children in State schools was $230 per head.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator is getting wide of the Bill now. We are dealing with the appointment of a Minister of State.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 assure you I am coming back to it, Mr President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator must link his remarks with the Bill now before the Senate.

Senator GAIR:

Senator Cavanagh ls attempting to interject. I know that what I am saying is not palatable to him. But at the last election he supported a policy which was in line with this.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, I did not.

Senator GAIR:

– The honourable senator did. On the basis of $230 per head, it is costing the State governments $40.6m a year to educate 177,000 children who normally would be educated in independent schools.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator is certainly observing your ruling, Mr Deputy President.

Senator GAIR:

– With the aid of the jerker here-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator GAIR:

– Well, Mr Deputy President, he is jerking you into action. That is what. I mean. If the new Department of Education and Science and the new Minister who will administer that Department thoroughly examine my $50/ $30 proposal, they will find that it will not cost the Commonwealth as much as a lot of people might imagine. 1 conclude by saying very definitely that I am opposed to the appointment of additional Ministers just as I am opposed to an increase” in the number of members elected to the House of Representatives. J do not believe there is any warrant for the appointment of an additional Minister. But because the Prime Minister made it clear that he intended to establish this new Department and because the subject of education is close to the hearts of the people who make up the party that I represent, J do not propose to impede its establishment. 1 hope that the Department will operate successfully and in the interests of those people whom it is proposed it should serve. However, it is not too late for the Prime Minister to have another look at the composition of his Cabinet and to interest himself in the quantum of work performed by each Minister and the growth of the Public Service, lt is not too late for the exercise of a little economy here and there where there is wanton waste, the cost of which has to be met by the taxpayer. I respectfully make these few suggestions to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. I know that it would be difficult for him to drop a Minister if he found that somebody was not fully occupied and that two departments could be administered by one Minister. But let him grasp the thistle. There is an old saying amongst the Scots that if you grasp the thistle tightly it will not hurt you.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

Senator Gair has roamed it large in his discussion of the measure that is now before the Senate, but because the hour is late I wish to take him up on only one specific matter with which he dealt. He spoke about the effectiveness of the Gair Government in Queensland. He spoke about the breaking of the nexus and the financial strain on independent schools. But the matter to which I wish to direct the Senate’s attention specifically and which was referred to by the honourable senator is his statement that Australian Labor Party members might be surprised to learn that the Chifley Ministry was as large as the present Holt Ministry. Indeed, after a perusal of the records we would be very surprised to learn that it was. It is quite significant that the honourable senator in typical language started his reference by saying: ‘My information is- ‘. Consistent with other information that comes from the honourable senator, his information obviously was wrong. When the Ministers of State Bill of 1946 was introduced, the then Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, said that: the purpose of the Bill was to continue the then ministerial numerical strength beyond the date of expiry of the National Security Act. At that time the Chifley Labor Administration consisted of nineteen Ministers. In the continuation of the debate the then Leader of the Opposition, then Mr Menzies, said:

The Bill now before the House contains one major provision, namely, that the number of Ministers of Stale shall not exceed nineteen.

It is very significant not only that the Chifley Ministry consisted of nineteen but also that in the composition of the Ministry there were five senators. When we compare that record with the record of this Government, with a Ministry of twenty-six, only five of them being in this chamber, one can see that the influence of this house of review has been eroded gradually over the years under a series of tory administrations. Indeed, when I first came into this chamber in 1962, although there were some twenty-two Ministers of whom only five were in the Senate, four of those Ministers in the Senate were members of the Cabinet, and. very important and effective members of the Cabinet. These were Senator Sir William Spooner, Senator Paltridge and Senator Wade, all of whom are now deceased, and the present Minister for Supply (Senator Henty). Also, I understand that at that time Senator Gorton was knocking on the door of Cabinet. So by and large one can see that over the period of conservative administrations the effectiveness of Ministers in this chamber and the effectiveness of this chamber generally has been regarded rather scantily.

Senator Wheeldon cited figures showing a comparison between the sizes of ministries in this Parliament and in other parliaments. Not only has there been no significant increase - indeed, no increase at all - in the influence of Ministers in this chamber, but also one must take into account the ignoring of recommendations made by Senate select committees that have brought clown recommendations to the Government. These include the Senate Select Committee on Road Safety and the Vincent committee, the Senate Select Committee on. the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television. A number of recommendations were made by honourable senators who were appointed to those select committees and not one of those recommendations has ever been considered by the Government.

Now let us look at the responsibilities of the Ministers who sit in this chamber at present. I point this out because in recent times - bearing in mind that question time in this chamber is rebroadcast on Tuesday night and Thursday night - the present arrangements have been, perhaps, making a laughingstock of this chamber. We all know that practically every second question that is asked in this chamber without notice is directed by the appropriate Minister to be placed on the notice paper. One can understand it when one sees the great responsibilities with which they are faced and the details of the portfolios that they are asked to try to comprehend in addition to their own important portfolios. Take for instance the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty). He is also Minister for Supply. In this chamber he represents the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Treasurer and the Minister for National Development. So far as this Senate is concerned he is answerable to senators for six portfolios.

Senator Gorton represents the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Labour and National Service, the Minister for Territories and the Attorney-General and is thus answerable for six portfolios in this chamber. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) represents the PostmasterGeneral, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Minister for Works and the Minister for Civil Aviation, and is thus responsible for five portfolios. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) represents the Minister for the Interior, the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Air, the Minister for the Army and the Minister for the Navy and is therefore responsible for six portfolios. The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) represents the Minister for Immigration, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Services, and is thus responsible for four portfolios. Is it any wonder that having regard to the present arrangement practically every second question asked without notice in this chamber has to be relegated to the notice paper? In accordance with my experience in this Parliament, in a few weeks time honourable senators will be rising and asking Ministers when they can expect answers to questions that were placed on the notice paper some three or four weeks earlier. The notice paper becomes cluttered up and questions become out of date. Answers are kept in the pigeon holes of Ministers until the political effect of them has subsided. Because of all these matters the Senate is gradually being relegated to the position of a second chamber in this Parliament. Senator Wood said that he would be opposing any future extension of the Ministry. We on this side of the chamber anxiously await that day because we believe that in the lifetime of this Parliament, having regard to the present arrangements and to the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) that the composition of the Ministry would be reviewed again after the next Senate elections, Senator Wood will be expected to cast his vote in the manner which he indicated.

Now let me look at the composition of the present Ministry. The manner in which some of these portfolios have been arranged is rather astonishing. Take the very important portfolio of Trade and Industry. The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) is also Deputy Prime Minister. But, in addition, two other Ministers are actively connected with the administration of that portfolio. The administration of Social Services was a full time portfolio until this Parliament, but now Mr Sinclair, as well as being Minister for Social Services, is Minister assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry. As if that were not sufficient, we find that the Minister for the Navy was given a full time portfolio in the last Ministry but the present Minister for the Navy is also, under the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities.

So there we have one very important department - the Department of Trade and Industry - administered by the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Trade and Industry. The Minister for Social Services is assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry and then we have, as it were, an understrapper - the Minister for the Navy. He is Minister in charge of Tourist Activities under the Minister for Trade and Industry. One cannot help but feel that this Department is overloaded and top heavy and that a far better arrangement of the Ministry could have been made.

Now let me say something about the proposed Department of Education and Science, about which Senator Gair had something to say. Under the proposed arrangements, one cannot help but feel that the term Department of Education and Science is merely a political public relations gimmick because not only do we find that the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton) is to administer that portfolio and has a number of other portfolio responsibilities in this chamber, but also is Minister for Works. State governments today are spending more of their annual Budgets on education than they have in the past and the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government towards education is growing but, under the proposed arrangements, the Department of Education and

Science is not to be an administrative organisation guiding the talents of the younger generation of Australians in education, but merely is to be, as it were, an advisory department. The ‘Australian’ newspaper of 3rd January 1967 - I have not seen a denial of this - stated:

The new Commonwealth Department of Education and Science has lost its first battle for increased powers.

The department, under its new Minister, Senator J. G. Gorton, made a strong bid to take over the administration of Canberra’s local education system from the Department of the Interior. lt is almost unbelievable that a Department of Education and Science is to be established and. although there are direct educational responsibilities under the control of the Commonwealth Government, those responsibilities are not to be transferred to that Department but are to remain within the purview of the Department of the Interior. The newspaper went on to state:

Some senior officials foresee the time when there will be a Commonwealth education system . . .

Opponents of the scheme, including some Ministers and senior advisers, said they believed the new department’s role in education should be restricted to that of a policy advisory body.

Even on the most casual scrutiny it must be seen that the arrangement proposed under this Rill will lead to the direct antithesis of effective and efficient government. The Bill as it comes before the Senate seems to be only another step along the road towards bulging administrations and bulging ministries. For the reasons enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and others who have spoken on this side of the chamber, we oppose the passage of this measure. We believe it is not in the interests of effective administration and, therefore, not in the ‘interests of Australians generally.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Today we heard three supporters of the Government in the Senate vigorously criticise the Government and the proposals in the Bill and then announce that they would vote for the measure. This is anathema to me. One of those honourable senators acted on the false premise that the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) had stated in his policy speech that he would appoint another Minister. What the right honourable gentleman did say was that he would establish another Ministry. The second of these honourable senators followed his usual form. The third one based his action on a misunderstanding. He thought that if there was a new Ministry there must be a new Minister.

I propose to attack the Government and to vote against the Bill. In the policy it enunciated during the election campaign, the Liberal Party announced that a new Ministry was projected; but nobody could have believed that that meant that an extra Minister would be appointed. Otherwise the Press would have set up a howl. There is no doubt in the minds of the people that there are already too many Ministers and too many politicians. The people would not have supported such a proposition. If they had thought there was to be an extra Minister there would have been widespread criticism of the proposal. I do not think that the people for one moment believed that when the Prime Minister promised a Ministry of Education and Science if the Government were re-elected, he was implying that he would appoint a new Minister. Often departments are amalgamated with others.

No doubt we will hear it said frequently that whatever the Government decides to do must be accepted because the Government was given a mandate by the people. We have already heard it said in this debate that the Government was given an overwhelming mandate. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not believe the people gave this Government a mandate on any specific issue such as Vietnam or a new Department of Education and Science. They gave the Government an overwhelming majority because there was practically nobody else to vote for. The people of Australia really had only one course, and that was to vote for the present Government. Therefore, I hope we will not hear it said too often in this chamber that whatever the Government proposes is right because the people gave it a mandate. If that is true, let us all go home now and let the Government carry on in a dictatorial manner, ruling by regulation rather than by Act of Parliament.

Unfortunately, in Australia there are three classes of society. We have to recognise this. There are the poor, the labourers. Then there are the rich, the capitalists. Finally, there are the Federal

Ministers. They sit on the right hand of God. It has been said that some previous Prime Ministers had some doubt about who was sitting on whose side. Nevertheless it is a fact that once you become a Federal Minister you talk to no one but God. To me, the proposed increase of one in the number of Ministers is reprehensible. There are now twenty-five Ministers. I do not want to talk in terms of personalities in this context. 1 have no objection to any of the three Ministers suggested for appointment. They are all good people. I have no personal objection to those who already have managed, by favour or otherwise, to get their appointments. But what is there for a Minister for Housing to do? All that is involved in that Department is that money is allotted and transferred. Do not tell me this is a full time ministerial job. One can go through department after department and see for oneself that the administration of those departments is not a full time job unless you subscribe to Parkinson’s law and make it a full time job. There are heads of departments. If a portfolio is nontechnical the Minister in charge of it may have to study submissions made to him. But there are very few portfolios that are full lime jobs.

Prior to my election 1 had condemned the Government and said that there were far too many Defence portfolios. 1 had some support in this view. We have a Minister for the Army, a Minister for the Navy, a Minister for Air, a Minister for Defence and a Minister for Supply. We could do without at least three if not four of those Ministers. But no, we have to curry favour wilh our group. We have to make sure that we obtain the support we want. We must increase and never decrease the size of the Ministry. So, here we go again establishing another ministry. No thought has been given to the taxpayers of the country. The Government could quite easily and without any loss of efficiency decrease the number of Ministers. We have more civil servants in our Defence departments - when I use the word ‘defence’ generally i mean the Army, Navy and Air Force - than we have trained soldiers. It is pathetic that in a country with only eleven and a half million people we need four Ministers directly concerned with defence. Surely we could dispose of three of those Ministers. There is a good deal of support for that view.

Senator Wright:

– There are five Defence portfolios.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Yes, if the honourable senator includes the Minister for Supply. But this portfolio is not concerned completely with defence projects. Probably a considerable amount of the job has to do with defence but Supply could be a junior portfolio if Defence was run in conjunction with the three Services. This applies to several of these portfolios.

The former Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies, when in Opposition was extremely scathing in his remarks about these defence portfolios. Of course, this is purely politics. Once a person is in office as Prime Minister he has more Ministers; if he is out of office he condemns the appointment of more Ministers. When the former Prime Minister was in Opposition he condemned any increase in the Ministry. When he became Prime Minister he increased the size of the Ministry as rapidly as he could. Honourable senators have read reports from another place and in the Press as to what the former Prime Minister said. 1 do not propose to carry the matter further. But he obviously thought that the portfolios of the Postmaster-General, the Minister for the Army and the Minister for the Navy could well be abolished without anyone suffering. This is how it goes on. Is there any necessity whatsoever for the appointment of an extra Minister as proposed by this Bill? I. have not heard one speaker today say that such a necessity exists. The nearest to it was Senator Gair who through a. misconception which he created in his own mind, I think, thought: that because a new Ministry was created a new Minister must be appointed. He said that he would support this Bill so that the Minister could be appointed and the Ministry would not bc impeded. Nothing could be done until the Department was set up. So, there cannot be any impediment to the formation of a new Ministry. I am wholly in support of the new Ministry but to me there ls no necessity whatsoever for the appointment of a new Minister.

Another point to which I object strongly has been clearly stated by Senator Wright. But Senator Wright: raises these points on which I agree with him 100% and yet he does nothing about them. He has the knowledge and probably the time to do something about them. I commend a number of the arguments that he put forward today. Unfortunately, we in the Senate will do nothing whatsoever about them. We will go along in exactly the same way as we have done in the past. We were virtually told before the last election and before the Parliament met who the Ministers were, what departments would be increased in size and also the composition of the new Ministry. So there is another objection in regard to the method in which this matter is handled.

Finally, I come to the question of cost. I am not referring to the setting up of a department which, of course, will grow with intense activity invariably even though the Department to be established will only be dispensing money for certain projects because the State governments already have their own departments of education. The new Department will deal with the Australian Capital Territory. But this new Ministry can help only to direct where money will be spent. Certainly the State governments will not take directions from the new Ministry as to what sort of system of education they will have. There will be very little for the Minister for Education and Science to do. But the costs will go up. lt is no mean thing appointing a new Minister. As a rough estimate I would say that this appointment will cost between $50,000 and $80,000 a year. The increase in the salary of the member appointed a Minister may only be $6,000 but the new Minister will have one private secretary, one public relations officer and at least two secretaries for secretarial work. All of these persons will require leave, allowances, superannuation and so on. A big item also will doubtless be the $10,000 a year for the Minister’s trip abroad. At the minimum, the appointment of the new Minister will cost approximately $70,000 per annum. This is the cost for one extra Minister. My estimate may be out $10,000 either way. Whichever way it is, it is a lot of money when we remember that this Work could be done by one of the present Ministers.

I am not going into the question of how Ministers are appointed. I do not think that this has anything to do with the Bill before the Senate. Most people in Australia have a considered opinion on the subject. Most people in Australia agree, I think, with the statement that if a person is with the Prime Minister he is in and if he is not with the Prime Minister he is out. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, especially in the Senate where we see so many people on the Government benches who are capable of being Ministers and who should have been Ministers long before those who are at present Ministers were appointed. The present Ministers that we have are all good Ministers. Nevertheless, we find talent sitting on the back benches on the Government side. This talent has not been utilised. I think that it is a poor thing for this country that a member or senator has to be a yes man before he can become a Minister. I do not think that anyone will contradict me when I say that. No-one will contradict me in public. Perhaps members of the Liberal Party at their little meetings may do so but the general bulk of the Australian people believe that this is so. I am not joking. We have someone like Senator Wright with more brains than anyone else in the Senate; he is sitting on one of the back benches. I have had my fights with the honourable senator but at least when a man has ability to his credit let us give him praise. Sitting on the Government back benches also are a man with the astuteness of Senator Wood and a man with the forcefulness of Senator Cormack. But these honourable senators sit on the back benches because they have disagreed with the Government at some stage or other. They will sit there for life. This is the tragedy of Australian government.

It is time that the Prime Minister had a look at his own Ministers to see not only that the best persons are appointed but also that their abilities are fully utilised. This should be done .instead of appointing the extra Minister as we will be passing this Bill. Nothing that I have said today means that I am against the formation of the new Department. 1 am all for it. If a referendum is to be held at any time the Commonwealth should propose at that referendum that it take over the powers of administering education from the State governments. The standard of education varies in different States. In my own State of Tasmania, it is a sort of mass produced education. I do not think anyone is really educated under this system. 1 have said this before publicly in my own State. That was when I left Cabinet. But it is true. I think that we would be far better off in Australia where, after all, we are all one people, if we had a greater degree of uniformity in this field. I would be quite happy to see the Commonwealth take over education just as it was given power to take over health. Education, next to health. is the greatest thing that the Australian people need and want. However, this is really getting away from the subject. I have given my reasons why I cannot support the appointment of an extra Minister as proposed by this Bill.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– A visitor from another planet who happened to drop in on today’s proceedings in this chamber might well have reflected that this was an extraordinary debate. For a start, he would have been looking in vain for Government supporters. In spite of the fact that the Opposition has made no secret of its intention to oppose this Bill, apart from the Minister who presented the Bill to the Senate not one Government senator has risen in his place to express approval of the measure. 1 think we have heard from eight honourable senators in the course of this debate. We have heard a very strong attack on the Bill by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). We have heard grouches from the ground swell of discontent and resentment on the Government side of the chamber. We have heard the representative of the Democratic Labor Party chase himself around in circles and ultimately, flushed with his victory in the ballot for positions on the Library Committee as a result of Government support, come clown on the side of the Government in the vote on this measure.

Senator Cormack:

– Twenty-six Ministers are better than thirty-three.

Senator COHEN:

– We are not talking about thirty-three; we are talking about twenty-six. The real position that the Senate faces is that no case whatever has been made out by this arrogant Government for the additional Minister. This Government feels so secure with its numbers, certainly in another place, that it does not ever feel the necessity to give its reasons for any new measure.

In this instance we are treated with some contempt. Long before this Bill was intro duced, the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) publicly announced that he was appointing an additional Minister. He named the Minister and allocated a portfolio to him in advance.

Senator Henty:

– And he said: ‘subject to parliamentary approval’.

Senator COHEN:

– He said: ‘subject to parliamentary approval’; but he made it perfectly clear that this was what was in his mind. He anticipated the vote of the Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– The Constitution envisages that, does it not?

Senator COHEN:

– We are not talking about the Constitution. 1 am discussing what this Bill is all about. In the course of this debate we have heard a number of contributions from honourable senators on the Government side who in conscience should vote against this Bill but who raised a number of issues on which ultimately they found it possible to support the Government. We members of the Opposition are not in that position. We arc opposed to this Bill. We do not believe that a case has been made out for the appointment of an additional Minister.

At this late stage I do not want to repeat the arguments that the Leader of the Opposition put on our behalf, when he stated quite frankly what our attitude is. We are certainly not opposed to the creation of a Ministry of Education and Science. We do not want to boast about this; but if the Ministry of Education and Science is anybody’s baby it is ours. For years we have pressed for the creation of a separate Ministry of Education and also, perhaps, a separate Ministry of Science and Technology, or a Ministry of Education and Science. By the creation of this Ministry of Education and Science, the Government is now meeting a demand which it is the last to recognise. Every responsible educationist in Australia knows that for a long time this country has needed a Commonwealth Ministry of Education and Science.

Senator McClelland:

– The Government is going about it in a’ very half-hearted way.

Senator COHEN:

– In a very half-hearted way, the Commonwealth Government has entered the field of education, although everybody knew for a long time that that was necessary. The Government always stood against the creation of this separate Ministry, until the last election. Now we have it. Nothing that we have said in opposition to this Bill affects our strong support for such a Ministry. I do not want any confusing arguments to cut across the way in which the Opposition puts its case.

We have said that if the Government cared to take a good look at itself it would find it possible to co-ordinate departments, to amalgamate departments - to follow the example of other advanced countries such as Canada which has managed to combine all the service departments in one defence department - and to carry out a reorganisation of functions to permit the grouping of related Ministries and related fields of proper government endeavour. I will not recapitulate the various suggestions that have been made in the course of this debate as to how that can be done. We are confident that it can be done. We are also sure that the Government did not really bother to look at this problem before deciding that the additional Minister was warranted. Our invitation to the Government is to have another look at this problem. We are not prepared to support this measure. We believe that some honourable senators who have spoken against it but who will vote for it should, pursuant to their own views, vote against it. But that is a matter for them. We members of the Opposition are quite unrepentant in our attitude to the Bill. We will be opposing it. We invite the Senate to reject it.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I have listened to the debate today with a great deal of interest. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I find myself in agreement with him on only one point; that is, that the question posed by the Bill is whether there should be twenty-five or twenty-six Ministers. J quite agree that that is what the Bill is all about. I listened to the last speaker, Senator Cohen, with tremendous interest. He said that we had not made out any case for the Bill. It would not matter if we made out the best case in the world because at the beginning of this debate the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that Caucus had told members of the Opposition that they were to vote against the Bill. No matter what case we make out, they are against the Bill. That is all there is to it. So that argument falls completely to the ground because members of the Opposition had committed themselves without hearing a word from the Government.

Senator Cohen:

– We examined the Bill in Caucus and we rejected it.

Senator HENTY:

– That is quite right. I am glad the honourable senator admits it. I want to answer the point about the creation of an additional Ministry. I refer to the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) in which he said:

We believe the time has come to establish a Commonwealth Ministry of Education and Science and wc will do this.

This Ministry will be responsible not only for education but also for certain areas of scientific activity. The CSIRO will function within the new Ministry.

He did not say that he intended to abolish anything.

Senator Cohen:

– That is not the same thing as appointing an additional Minister.

Senator HENTY:

– That would follow with a new Ministry. It has always been clear in the Government’s mind that there would be an additional Ministry. I have some figures which I took out at lunch time and which I think will be of great interest. The Labor Government, in its last year of office - 1949 - raised the number of Ministers to nineteen. At that time the population of Australia was 8,045,000. That means that that Government had one Minister for every 423,000 people. In 1956, when the number of Ministers was raised from nineteen to twenty-two, the population of Australia was 9,533,000. So there was one Minister for every 433,000 people. In other words, in 1956 there were 10,000 more people for each Minister than the Labor Government had in 1949. At 30th June 1966 the population of Australia was 11,540,000. The number of Ministers now proposed is twenty-six. That represents one Minister for every 444,000 people - not 423,000 as under the Labor Government in 1949. Of course, since 30th June 1966 there would have been a further increase in the population, making the figure of 444,000 an underestimate, if anything. These are interesting figures which will be recorded in Hansard. I noted the criticism by honourable senators opposite, but they fail to remember What they did themselves when they lifted the Ministry to nineteen members and the number oF people for each Minister was the lowest ever. That is on the record and it is worth remembering when there is criticism from the Opposition. 1 listened with great interest to the suggestion that we the Senate should have a committee of managers. That very intelligent and interesting point was raised by Senator Wright. Let me tell him that this matter has been examined very carefully during the life of the Senate. The idea is that, with a committee of managers, Ministers from the other place would come here to steer their Bills through the House. That idea may sound very well but there are difficulties in the way of its practical administration, and in the cause of efficient administration it has always been discarded. 1 believe that is right. If there were no Ministers in the Senate, honourable senators would not be worrying about replies to questions being sometimes delayed. In fact they would not be able to ask questions without notice. All questions would have to go on the notice paper and replies would await the Minister’s pleasure.

Senator McClelland:

– That is the situation now.

Senator HENTY:

– If the honourable senator kept his mouth closed a little more often and did not say so much he would not commit himself so frequently. He said that one out of every three questions without notice asked in this place had to be put on the notice paper. That means that two out of every three are answered. If there were no Ministers here, even two out of three would not be answered.

I listened to Senator Turnbull for quite a while. I want to say something to him. At times he offers some tough and rough criticism. I will give him a little back, and I know he will take it. He does not mind. He complained about all the trappings of a Minister and so forth. For many years he was Treasurer of Tasmania, with all the trappings, black cars, secretaries and everything else he now complains about. AH he could spend was what the Commonwealth gave him; there was nothing else in the kitty. All he could achieve was to threaten Tattersalls with socialisation. Eventually he drove the organisation to Victoria and Tasmania lost all the revenue it had been receiving from that source over the years. As far as I can see, that was his major achievement. He will long be remembered for it by the Tasmanian Treasury. He did not spare his criticism of us, so I now say to him: ‘Remember what happened when you were Treasurer of Tasmania, with all the things about which you now complain’.

Senator Wheeldon referred to the United States and said that there are only twelve Ministers in the National Parliament there. He failed to tell the whole story. Anyone who has been to America and has seen the American system at work knows that the story goes further. First of all, American Ministers are not elected. They are not even in the Parliament. They are appointed by the President. In Australia a Minister must answer to the Parliament and to the representatives of the people in the Parliament. In America there is the China desk, the Burma desk and so on, and each department has a head. Brother, if you as an ordinary person had to try to get through the galaxy of civil servants who are the equivalent of Ministers here you would notcome down on the side of the American system. You would rather have Ministers to answer questions and to shoot at, and rightly so. That is the better democratic system. I believe - I challenge anyone to dispute this - that we have in Australia the best democratic system of government in the world.

I fully approve the appointment of twentysix Ministers because 1 believe that when a Minister is responsible to the people and to the Parliament the people get the best service. They can reach the Ministers, whom they have elected, and raise with them any matters they wish to raise. I firmly believe that our Australian system of democracy is something which might well be copied in other parts of the world. I do not believe that we should adopt a system under which you can get nowhere near those who are responsible for the matter you wish to raise, particularly if they are in the higher echelons of the civil service. The Australian democratic system is something of which we can be proud.

I suppose that some day the Opposition will compose its differences. If it does not, it will fade out altogether and another form of opposition will take its place. That is hard to say. However, perhaps at some time in the years that lie ahead the Labor Party will have to answer for all it has said while it has been in opposition. We will see what happens then. The Labor Party has been in opposition for so long that it has no idea how the responsibilities of the Federal Government have grown.

Senator Gair:

– The Opposition has given up hope of becoming the government. It has not appointed a shadow Cabinet.

Senator HENTY:

– I could not help but be amused at the reason given for that. There are so few members of the Labor Party in the House of Representatives that they would all be Cabinet Ministers if a shadow Cabinet were appointed, so they thought they would be better off without one. At least that was the excuse offered.

Senator Murphy:

– The Minister should enjoy himself in the little time he has left.

Senator HENTY:

– It has been a very enjoyable sixteen years, and it could be another sixteen years. 1 think I have covered most of the points raised during the debate. It might be said that I am a prejudiced witness, but I fully understood and believed the Prime Minister’s policy speech to mean that there would be a new Ministry and an additional Minister. I stated that every time this matter was raised during the election campaign. 1 am sure that was always the Government’s intention. I believe the appointment of an additional Minister is justified. With those comments I leave the Bill to the House and trust that it will be passed.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 24

NOES: 23

Majority….1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 113

DISPUTED RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table my warrant appointing the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee. Pursuant to standing order 38 I hereby appoint the following senators to be the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications - Senator H. G. J. Cant, Senator Sir Walter Cooper, Senator A. J. Drury, Senator A. E. D. Lillico, Senator E. W. Mattner. Senator C. F. Ridley and Senator J. P. Sim.

page 113

REFERENDUM PROPOSALS

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY (Tasmania - Minister for

Supply) - by leave - The statement I propose to make was made this morning in another place by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt). It was not available to me at that time. Honourable senators will understand that where I use the personal pronoun it refers to the Prime Minister. The statement reads:

Cabinet has given further consideration to a question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on the matter of holding a referendum on the two items which were the subject of legislation by both Houses of Parliament towards the end of 1965. It has decided to proceed in relation to both of these matters. The major purpose of the first proposal was to remove the requirement in the Constitution that any increase in the number of members in the House of Representatives would automatically produce an increase in the number of senators to the extent of half the increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. The second proposal, in the form in which it was previously passed, was designed to remove the provision which prevented Aboriginal natives from being counted when the population is reckoned. This is one of two provisions in the Constitution in which Aboriginals or people of the Aboriginal race are mentioned explicitly. They are to be found in section 51 placitum 26 and section 127. Section 51 placitum 26 provides:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: -

The people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any Stale, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

The Government has decided to propose that the words: ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ be omitted from the section. While the original intention in inserting these words was to safeguard the position of the people of the Aboriginal race they have been widely misinterpreted and there is a general impression that they are discriminatory.

When amending proposals were previously before the Parliament, that relating to Aboriginals was adopted unanimously in both Houses, and the proposal to break the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate was adopted unanimously in the House of Representatives and by a very substantial majority of the Senate: Indeed, on the second reading of the Bill in that chamber there were forty-four ayes and seven noes. On the third reading there were forty-three ayes and eight noes.

For reasons which I publicly indicated on 15th February 1966 and later repeated in my first policy statement to the House of Representatives on 8th March 1966 the Government decided to defer until the commencement of this Parliament the consideration of the taking of a referendum in relation to these matters. I said then:

We intend early in the life of the next Parliament to introduce the necessary legislation to enable a referendum to be held on the proposal to break the nexus between the two Houses of Parliament. We will also then give a general indication of our intention in relation to the distribution proposals which would be made if the referendum proved successful. We intend at the same time to present also the proposals relating to Aboriginals. ‘This proposal has been supported by all political parties and there was indeed no negative case prepared for circulation to the electors.

I now give the general indication then promised of our intention in relation to redistribution proposals. Need for this is long overdue as 1 am sure all honourable senators will agree. Some metropolitan electorates, for example, in the same State, have less than 40,000 voters while others are in excess of 100,000. By the time of the next election, assuming the Parliament will run its full course, the disparity will have widened. Should the referendum in relation to the abolition of the nexus between the two Houses prove successful, the Government would propose to increase the size of the House of Representatives so as to provide one member for npt less than 85,000 persons.. It is worth mentioning here, I think, that a specific provision relating to 85,000 persons would be the first occasion When such a specification has been inserted in the Commonwealth Constitution. This, we anticipate, would require an increase of about thirteen in the size of the House of Representatives.

Unless the nexus is removed an increase in ‘ the House of Representatives must be accompanied by an increase of as nearly as practicable half that number in the Senate. If the present voting system were to be maintained this could only be performed effectively by increasing the Senate by twenty-four, thus involving a total increase in the House of Representatives of forty-eight. In other words, to secure what would be intended as a modest increase in the House of Representatives, we would be driven - 1 repeat assuming that we maintain the present system of voting for the Senate - to a total increase of seventy-two parliamentarians.

The purpose of the nexus proposal is as, 1 have mentioned. It has been suggested that our object is to permit an excessive increase in the number of members of Parliament. This was one of the grounds of criticism which we heard at the time of the earlier legislation. This, of course, is not so. Our proposal is, I repeat, to ask the electors for approval to change the Constitution so that as the growth of the population requires we can legislate in this Parliament for modest increases in the size of the popular House. It is true that the present Constitution would permit small increases in the size of this House, but they would have to be accompanied by directly proportionate increases in the size of the Senate. Our proposals, if carried, are designed to allow the smallest increase that we consider to be consistent with effective representation without the necessity to make adjustments in the size of the Senate.

There is no question of eroding the proper role of the Senate by the proposal to break the nexus, nor indeed of precluding future increases in the size of the Senate. I think that questions of this sort, with the restraints removed, could safely be left to the good sense of representative members of the Parliament in both Houses, themselves responsive to the wishes of the electorate as they interpret it at the time. Under the existing constitutional provisons, it is not possible to secure in the numbers of the House of Representatives changes without running into serious difficulties in effecting the proportionate changes in the size of the Senate. We believe that the Government and the Parliament should have the flexibility to secure such changes in the size of this House - that is the House of Representatives - as we deem desirable as our population grows. However, we believe that the Senate as at present constituted is well able to discharge, and discharge effectively, the role designed for it by the Constitution. We are well aware that some fears are held that the prestige and authority of the Senate may in some manner be diminished as a consequence of this proposal and its role as a House of Review and custodian of the rights of the smaller States weakened. We do not accept these views as having practical force. The Senate of the United States of America provides an example of how a chamber much smaller in numbers than the popular House may acquire great authority and prestige. In modern times, most senators,, in my experience - and this is invariably the position of those from the Australian Labor Party - have followed* in the Senate the policies adopted by the majority in their party room discussions.

The Government, 1 may say, has considered other suggestions that have been brought forward to effect an increase in the size of the House of Representatives and at the same time enable an increase in the size of the Senate but without having the considerable jump in numbers that would follow if we maintained the present system of voting. We have looked, in particular, at a proposal that the Senate be increased by a total of six, with one additional senator for each State. This would mean that at alternate elections there would be six senators voted for on one occasion and five on the other. It might be necessary to have six senators elected in some States and five senators elected in others at the same election. The possibility of a deadlocked Senate would be considerably increased and there are other factors which, in the view of the Government, make this a less desirable course than the more simple and clear cut proposition to increase the House of Representatives to the required extent without the requirement of a corresponding increase in the Senate.

We did consider whether other referendum proposals should be added to the two that had previously been considered by the Parliament. However, except in the one respect I have mentioned, in relation to Aboriginals, we have come to the conclusion that we ought not to complicate the issues to be put to the people by introducing additional proposals but should confine ourselves to the two issues previously considered by the Parliament. These, as I have mentioned, were matters which received the unanimous support of the House of Representatives and, as to one. unanimity in the Senate, and, as to the other, the very large majority that I have detailed. The Government feels that, with an understanding of its intentions and recognition of the necessity to provide adequate parliamentary representation for a rapidly growing population there will be the necessary electoral support for the desired constitutional change. There should be also wide approval of the removal of provisions generally deemed, even if mistakenly, in some way to discriminate unfavourably against Aboriginals and persons of the Aboriginal race.

Our intention is to put through the necessary legislation relating to these proposals as soon as practicable. I expect it to be introduced into this. House within the next week or two. We propose to have the measures passed as expeditiously as possible. Whatever may be the fate of the referendum, we are resolved that there will be a redistribution of electoral boundaries during the life of this Parliament. Clearly, it would be unsatisfactory to continue indefinitely a situation in which metropolitan electorates in particular exhibit such a wide disparity of numbers of voters and in which there is great need for a more balanced and more equitable distribution of boundaries between the electorates of the Commonwealth as a whole. The expedition proposed for the passage of the legislation and the submission of the proposals to the people by way of referendum is dictated in large part by our knowledge that the carrying through of a redistribution for all the electorates throughout Australia will take considerable time. We must have these initial procedures completed well before the next general election which we hope will occur in three years from now.

Senate adjourned at 4.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 February 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19670223_senate_26_s33/>.