Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 3 December 1965

Sir ROBERT MENZIES - The Committee itself; certainly. It will be the master of its own proceedings and of its own arrangements of a secretarial or clerical kind. I would have thought that was clear. Anyhow, if it is not clear, I make it clear. That is the design of this matter.

I think it is hardly necessary to point out that the terms of the motion are not inviting the Committee to design a Parliament House. We do not profess to be experts in that field; but we do have knowledge superior to that of other people of the requirements in a House, the needs in a House, and in many ways, how the various aspects of parliamentary life should be disposed of in a geographical sense - where they are to be placed in a parliamentary building.

Mr Clyde Cameron - And we know more about getting in.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES - We know a great deal more about getting in, and getting out. I have not tried that one yet. Therefore, the operative portion of the motion is that the -

.   . Joint Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on -

(a)   the accommodation needs of -

(i)   the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary staff in the Parliament building;

(ii)   members of the public visiting the Parliament building -

Sir, thisis really quite a problem, which is not solved in this building. I mean, people have to wander around Kings Hall and a lot of interviews have to occur out there. It is all rather odd. We really need in the Parliament House some definite areas which will be interview rooms. The motion continues -

(iii)   Library facilities, and catering and other facilities and services in the Parliament building for members of the Parliament and others;

That is orthodox -

(b)   whether, and, if so, to what extent or in what manner, the following should be accommodated in the Parliament building: -

(i)   the Executive -

It will not have escaped the notice of honorable members that this is a most curious building. Or it was. The designers of it appeared to believe that the Prime Minister ought to have some rooms in one corner and that the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and presumably the Leader of the Government in the Senate should have rooms in other corners, but that all other Ministers would be available in their Departments. Of course, this was ludicrous. If Ministers were established in departmental buildings they would never be able to attend a division in the House. The inevitable facts of political life made it essential as time went on that every Minister should have a room available in the House, reasonably close to the chamber. As a Minister must have a secretary and a stenographer, or whatever it may be, then he had to have two rooms and, sometimes, in the case of a very heavy portfolio, three rooms. The result was that all those rooms that might have been available for other purposes were taken up. This has led to a certain amount of tension in the past. I can very well remember that I had humbly to beg of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, that I might be allowed to have two small rooms because I was going to appoint another Minister. This was not frightfully well received. As a matter of fact, the Executive part of the new Parliament House ought to be under the control of the Executive and not of the Presiding Officers. It ought to be physically contiguous to the House but certainly not under the control of the

Presiding Officers or of the Joint House Committee.

Similarly, there is the problem of the Press and how they are to be accommodated. I do not provide the answers to these matters at all. The Press themselves and certainly we ourselves all would agree that the present arrangements are most unsatisfactory. I do not need to go into details about them. They are very familiar to every member of the House. I come to communication services. We are living in a new age now - the television age. Heaven knows what other marvels may follow on the heels of television. No facilities are provided in this place for television interviews. I am not suggesting that we ought to make a provision that we be televised in the course of debate. I would fear the turnover each election would be much too great. But I do believe that there are many occasions when some party leader or some significant member of the Parliament has to be interviewed or wants to make a television statement. It would be vastly convenient to have facilities for these things in a new Parliament House. We are living in a modern world. We ought to keep up with it. On top of these matters we have provided in the motion that the Committee will inquire into and report on -

(c)   matters incidental to the foregoing matters.

There is just one other matter I want to mention. This has been discussed between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and myself. The question of the site of the new Parliament House has not been made one of the formal terms of reference. When I remind the House of earlier Government announcements on this point and of the subsequent planning of the National Capital Development Commission I am sure this will be understood. The Leader of the Opposition has made a useful suggestion to me. I would like to say that I accept it. That is that I should make it clear in my speech that any member or members of the Committee will, in the Committee's report, be free to make such observations on the question of the site of the new Parliament House as he or they may desire.

Suggest corrections