In reply to your letter of 11th instant in relation to the Secretaryship of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, I have carefully considered the matter and my opinion is as follows:

1. The matter could be governed by section 9(i)c of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, but only in the sense that if it is first determined that the Secretary shall be an officer of both Houses of Parliament then appointment is to be made in a certain way.
2. The first question is whether the Secretaryship of the Committee must necessarily be filled by a person who is an officer of both Houses of Parliament. This is a question of policy and not of law. There is no absolute reason why the Secretaryship should not be filled for instance by an officer of the Postmaster–General’s Department upon the ground that the functions with which the Committee are dealing–broadcasting–appertain to that department. Again, there is no legal obstacle to the Secretaryship being filled by a person who will act as Secretary in addition to filling some other office in the Public Service.

I give these illustrations only to show that the law of the land does not present any obstacle to what is regarded as the best practical policy to adopt in the circumstances.

3. It follows that if the committee desires to utilise Mr. Groves’ services there is no legal objection to their doing so without Mr Groves being appointed an officer of both Houses of Parliament.
4. However, if it is decided that the Secretaryship is to be an officer of both Houses of Parliament then, of course, the matter comes under section 9(i)c of the Public Service Act. In that case, appointments and promotions are to be made on the joint recommendation of yourself and the President. Even in that case the matter is one for the Governor–General, that is the Governor–General acting not personally but constitutionally, viz. on the advice of his responsible Ministers.

Let us suppose a case in which the President and Speaker recommended a particular person for the appointment. The Governor–General, acting on the advice of Ministers, is not bound to accept the recommendation. Equally, the Governor–General cannot appoint an officer of both Houses except on the joint recommendation.

5. The practical result of these considerations is clear. The question should be determined as a matter of policy not of law. In the circumstances it would be right to pay regard to the desire of the Broadcasting Committee, the success of which must depend to a large extent upon the confidence between the Committee and its Secretary. If it is decided that Mr. Groves shall act as Secretary, it is quite feasible that he should so act without his being made an officer of both Houses. If it is considered more expedient that he should be made an officer that is also legally possible, and as I pointed out, the appointment does not necessarily proceed automatically upon the joint recommendation. If the responsible Ministers on the one hand and the President and Speaker on the other did not agree, an impasse would be reached which it is most desirable to avoid.
6. I therefore suggest a conference on the question of policy between (1) my colleague the Postmaster–General and myself (2) the President and Speaker, and (3) the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee. I see no reason why the Committee’s wishes cannot be given effect to, while at the same time preserving the proper prerogatives both of responsible Ministers and also of the President and the Speaker.
7. I should add that the Attorney–General’s opinion given in 19141 is in no way inconsistent with what I have said. It was an opinion as to what should be done in relation to the Public Works Committee. It was given upon the prior assumption that it was desired to constitute an office under the joint control of the two Houses. That assumption need not be made for, as I have explained, it is one of policy, not of law.

[Vol. 34, p. 524]