Senate
20 March 1956

22nd Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 265

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Presentation to the Governor-General.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - I have ascertained that His Excellency the GovernorGeneral will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply to his Opening Speech at Government House at 4.30 p.m. to-day. E invite all honorable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation.

page 265

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. MELBOURNE

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for the Navy say whether it is a fact that the new Australian aircraft carrier Melbourne will not call at South Australia on its voyage from England. If the Minister is aware that South Australia is not included in the itinerary of the vessel, will he endeavour to amend the itinerary so that the people of South Australia may have an opportunity to see it? If that cannot be done, will he explain to them the reasons why the aircraft carrier is not to call at any South Australian port?

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

– I shall have another look at the itinerary of the new aircraft carrier Melbourne, and will give the fullest and most sympathetic consideration to the suggestion of the honorable senator.

page 265

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I preface a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by stating that, prior to the war, Zealandia maintained a most important sea link between Hobart and Sydney. That vessel was lost during the war and since then no effort has been made to reinstitute the service. As I believe that only action by the Commonwealth Government can help Tasmania to regain that 1 ink, I now ask the Minister if he is pre- pared to make representations to private shipping companies, with a view to getting them to agree to re-institute the Sydney-Hobart passenger service which was so popular, as well as beneficial to Tasmania, in pre-war years; and will he, in due course, advise the Senate under what conditions such a service could be re-instituted ?

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

– I should have thought that since the end of the war the commercial possibilities of the restoration of such a service would have come prominently to the notice of ship-owners. Possibly the matter has been considered, and the proposal discarded on the ground that it would not now be regarded as a payable commercial proposition. That is mere supposition on my part, as I have given no thought to the matter raised by the honorable senator. However, in view of his question, I shall communicate with ship-owners, in order to ascertain whether they have given any consideration to the re-introduction of the service between Sydney and Hobart, and I will let the honorable senator know the result in due course.

page 265

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he has noticed recently in the press a series of remarkable and astounding articles written by Mr. Harold Cox, dealing with the enormous increase in the Public Service. Did the Minister read the fourth of these articles under the caption, “ Dead but won’t lie down”? Did that article refer to the Minister’s department ? If so, will the Minister, in fairness to himself and his department, make a considered statement to the Senate in answer to these allegations?

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

– I have not seen all the articles referred to by the honorable senator, but I read one relating to my department. It appeared in a Melbourne paper, but I have no recollection of its carrying the title mentioned by the honorable senator. Perhaps it appeared under a different caption in the Brisbane press. I assure the honorable senator that if it did carry that heading, my reply to Mr. Cox ia the same as the reputed comment of Mark Twain on a report of his death - it is much exaggerated.

page 266

QUESTION

A.BOEIGINAL FILM ACTOR TUDAWALI

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories. Has he noticed press reports that the aboriginal motion picture actor, Tudawali, is in a destitute condition in Darwin, suffering from tuberculosis? Is it a fact that because he is a full-blooded aboriginal, he is not, eligible for a tuberculosis pension? In view of this fact, has the department rendered assistance to this man? Will the Minister make a statement on the future treatment of this case?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I will make inquiries from the Minister for Territories in relation to this matter.

page 266

QUESTION

PROMAZINE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA · ALP

–I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, in continuation of a question I asked recently concerning drug discoveries. Can the Minister say whether any research developments are taking place in Australia in regard to the new tranquilizing drug, promazine ; a compound related to sulfa drugs which shows possibilities as a pill that will free diabetes sufferers from dependence on injections of insulin; and an injection of viruses that cause many ailments of the common-cold type, which has proved partly effective in slowing the growth of cervical cancer? These matters have been reported in international scientific circles.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Health, and obtain from him a considered reply.

page 266

QUESTION

AUS TE ALIA HOUSE

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has he seen the statement in this morning’s press from a recently returned visitor to the United Kingdom - a Tasmanian - who has been in England for six months studying farming methods, market prospects and so on, in which he says -

Australia House is regarded aa a white elephant and a haven of discourteous public servants who have no knowledge of Australia, and are not interested in its welfare or advancement.

He adds that Australian publicity is practically non-existent, whereas the representatives of New Zealand and Tasmania are doing an excellent job with a small, efficient staff. In view of the importance of trade publicity and good trade relations with the United Kingdom at this time, will the Minister make an immediate investigation of these allegations, and will he also furnish this House with a comprehensive report of the position ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honorable senator, but the substance of the complaint is completely at variance with my personal experience of Australia House on two occasions when I visited England, and also with the opinions expressed by most honorable senators opposite who spoke with great appreciation of the courtesy extended to them by the staff of Australia House. I am not prepared to investigate such general allegations as are inherent in the honorable senator’s question, but if he can give me particulars of specific complaints I shall have them examined, and a reply will be furnished.

page 266

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE

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

– I direct to the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question concerning the Tasmanian shipping services and the importance of maintaining a link between the mainland of Australia and Tasmania for the convenience of people who, because of medical or other reasons, are unable to use the air services. It has come to my notice that the Bass Strait steamer, Taroona, has reached a stage where it is completely uneconomical to replace its generators, so that the effective life of the vessel is extremely limited and is likely to be much shorter than was thought previously, even as recently as a few days ago. Can the Minister give an assurance to the Senate that provision will be made to replace this vessel and to maintain the important link between the mainland and Tasmania?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– To a similar question asked some little time ago, L answered that I hoped, in the near future, to have discussions with representatives of the Tasmanian Government regarding a replacement for Taroona. I am no in a position to say that those discussions took place in Melbourne, as recently as yesterday, with the Chief Secretary of the Tasmanian Government, and as a result there now will be a series of conferences between the technical officers of the Australian Shipbuilding Board and officers of the marine service of the Tasmanian Government, in respect of the provision of a replacement vessel and other matters connected with the conduct of the shipping service. I hope that, within the near future, I shall be able to make a definite statement on the outcome of the talks which will take place shortly.

page 267

QUESTION

EAGLE FARM AIRPORT

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

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that reports have been circulating recently in the Brisbane press to the effect that the Department of Civil Aviation proposes to suspend, or at least to curtail, work on the projected new long runway at Eagle Farm airport? Can the Minister say whether there is any substance in these reports ? If it is proposed merely to curtail the work, can the Minister inform the Senate of the degree of curtailment and when it is likely to operate ?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I myself have no knowldege of the position, but I shall address the honorable senator’s query to my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, and obtain an answer for him.

page 267

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of the importance of Cyprus to Australia, the British Government consulted the Australian Government before taking the action it has taken in Cyprus. I should also like to know whether the Australian Govern ment appreciated that Field Marshal Sir John Harding is now applying a policy similar to that which the notorious Hejdrich, a German appointed by the Nazis, applied in Czechoslovakia, particularly in relation to the village of Lidice. Does the Australian Government acquiesce in the carrying out of reprisals against innocent villagers?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– The question relates peculiarly to the relations existing between the United Kingdom Government and the inhabitants of Cyprus. I am not in a position to say how far we have been informed of the developments, but I shall make inquiries and give the honorable senator a considered reply.

page 267

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Apropos of the receipt by the Minister for Labour and National Service of an interim report from the committee which inquired into waterfront employment, will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the Senate whether relevant legislation is to be introduced and, if so, when?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– The interim report was received only last week. It was laid on the table of the House of Representatives last week, and I shall lay it on the table of the Senate this afternoon. It is a lengthy document, and its contents are now under consideration by the Government.

page 267

QUESTION

MEANS TEST FOR AGED PENSIONERS

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services by stating that, according to a report in a Melbourne daily newspaper, the Government intends to set up a committee to inquire into the means test and its application to pensioners over 70 years of age. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate pensions for persons of 70 years and over without the application of a means test? If so. when is the committee likely to be appointed ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have not heard of any such proposal. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Social Services, and if such a proposal is contemplated, I shall inform the honorable senator.

page 268

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– “Will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether it is a fact that single women over 60 years of age and single men over 65 are not taxable unless their net income exceeds £375 per annum? Is it a fact that the Taxation Branch, in arriving at net income for those persons, will not allow deductions for medical and other concessional benefits? Is this a fair interpretation of “ net income “ under those circumstances? Does it mean, in effect, that those old persons are the only taxpayers who do not receive those concessional deductions? Will the Treasurer arrange for a more liberal interpretation by the taxation authorities in assessing the net income of old people?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– It is true that special provision is contained in the Income Tax Act for certain deductions when the taxpayer reaches a certain age. As to how that is administered, I cannot answer offhand. Therefore, I ask the honorable senator to put the question on notice and I shall arrange for my colleague to obtain a reply from the Commissioner of Taxation.

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that a man’s daughter, who is housekeeping for him because he is divorced, is not regarded as a dependant and therefore no tax deduction is allowable in respect of her? If that is so, will the Minister review this matter in order to provide that a daughter in such a position will be considered in the same way for taxation purposes as is a de facto wife?

Senator SPOONER:

– This is another question that relates to the administration and interpretation of the Income Tax Act. As I am unable to answer it offhand, I ask the honorable senator to place it on the notice-paper.

page 268

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by stating that I have noticed press reports that the Australian Shipping Board has decided to build two 12,000-ton bulk carriers. What method is used to determine where those ships will be built ? I should also like to know whether tenders will be called for the supply of such vessels and, if not, will the shipbuilding yards at Whyalla be given a fair opportunity to build those ships ?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The practice has always been that tenders are called. That practice, of course, will be followed in the present instance and the Whyalla yards will be given an opportunity to tender along with other Australian shipbuilding yards.

page 268

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– Will the Minister for Repatriation table a return indicating how many appeals by exservicemen to the entitlement appeal tribunals are outstanding for three months or more since the 31st December, 1955? Is he aware that because of these long, and in my opinion unnecessary, delays many ex-servicemen, particularly old diggers, die before their entitlement appeals are heard?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be only too glad to obtain the information sought by the honorable senator, but I should like to know if he is referring to the figures for any particular State.

Senator Critchley:

– I should like the figures for the whole of Australia.

Senator COOPER:

– I shall be only too glad to obtain that information for the honorable senator.

page 268

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister in charge of war service homes. Some time ago I asked if it were possible to speed up the payment of loans to ex-servicemen. I had a case brought to my notice last week in which the division has agreed to the purchase of a home by an ex-serviceman but the money will not be made available tohim until May, or June, of next year. The purchaser is forced to borrow the money in the interim at an interest rate of 12 per cent. Will the Minister try to find ways and means of making this payment much earlier and thus save the young ex-serviceman the extra expense and interest he will otherwise be forced to meet ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I assume that the case mentioned is that of a digger who has made his application to the department, established his eligibility and brought forward his proposal, and that the War Service Homes Division has’ told him that it will accept the proposal, but that he must take his turn. The circumstances indicate that other applications have been made much earlier than his and that the division has indicated to him that payment of the money will be made at such and such a date. I am afraid that there is not much that can be done beyond that. An allocation of £30,000,000 is made each year for war service homes, and the honorable senator is suggesting, in effect, that the appropriation should be increased. That is a matter which is determined at the time each budget is presented to the Parliament.

page 269

QUESTION

RYDE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice, -

What is the approximate date of completion of the new telephone exchange at Ryde, New South Wales, and the date on which the switchover to complete automatic working will take place in that area?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

The installation of the Ryde automatic exchange is expected to he completed by June, 1957, and the North Ryde automatic exchange soon afterwards. Before the end of 1957.

page 269

QUESTION

FLOOD DAMAGE AND RELIEF

Senator ANDERSON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the recent floods in New South Wales caused widespread devastation in the Richmond- Windsor area, estimated by the State member. Mr. B. S. Deane, at some figure over £5,000,000?
  2. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has offered to grant a sum of money for flood relief in conjunction with the State Government on a £l-for-£l basis, and that the State Government is the distributing authority for flood relief?
  3. Is it a fact that relief is given only to tenant farmers, and that relief to ownerpurchaser farmers is excluded?
  4. If so, will the Common wealth insist that, in the granting of thisflood relief, distress and need should be the prime and only considerations?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

There have been widespread floods in certain areas of New South Wales during recent weeks, including the Richmond-Windsor area, but I have no knowledge of the extent of the damage there. The Commonwealth Government has agreed to join with the New South Wales Government on a£l-for-£l basisin establishing a fund for the relief of personal hardship and distress caused by these floods. The extent of the Commonwealth Government’s contribution will not be known until the State Government has prepared estimates of the cost of the scheme. Flood relief and flood mitigation is clearly a State responsibility. However, successive Commonwealth Governments have recognized the need for special action where serious and widespread damage has resulted from floods and other natural disasters, and in these circumstances, have joined with the States in financing relief schemes. The Commonwealth Government’s grants are used for the relief of personal hardship and distress only. But in all cases it is the State Government’s responsibility to administer the schemeand to determine the merits of particular claims. I understand that there is nothing in the New South Wales practice to prevent an owner farmer from receiving a flood relief grant, but more usually he is assisted by way of a special advance against the security of his assets.

page 269

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator TANGNEY:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime. Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that in Western Australia over the past few weeks some senior women members of the staffs of various Commonwealth Public Service departments have been informed that, as they are only temporary despite periods of faithful service varying from ten to fifteen years, there is the imminent possibility of their retrenchment to make way for younger girls who have recently qualified for entrance to the Service?
  2. If this is a fact, has the Prime Minister given any consideration to the fact that these women, mainly in the 45 to 55 years of age group, will have the utmost difficulty in obtaining other employment in competition with younger women?
  3. As the service given by these employees over a long and difficult period covering both the war and immediate post-war years has been most efficient and courteous, will the Prime Minister endeavour to have them retained in the Service in view of the value to the community of their experience, particularly in their contacts with the general public?
  4. In the event of the decision to retire these employees being adhered to, what provision, if any, can be made to tide them over the years until they reach pensionable age?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

The board is at present appointing, to various departments in Perth, clerical assistants who have qualified for entry into the Public Service as permanent officers. The appointments are, however, being made to replace staff losses. Some short service temporary employees will be replaced by permanent officers, but it is not intended at this stage to replace long-term temporary employees whose services are satisfactory.

page 270

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 16th February, Senator Benn asked the following question: -

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral inform me of the approximate cost that has been incurred up to date in putting into effect the Cabinet’s decision of the 20th May, 1955, to proceed with the establishment of national television stations in Sydney and Melbourne? Is it now expected that the two stations will commence operations at the end of this year? Has the Cabinet decided to proceed with the establishment of a national television station in Brisbane during 10571 Is it expected that any of the four successful applicants for licences for commercial television stations in Sydney and Melbourne will commence to transmit programmes before the end of 1957?

I have now received the following reply from the Postmaster-General: -

  1. The approximate cost to date of putting into effect the Cabinet’s decision of 26th May, 1955, to proceed with the establishment of national television stations in Sydney and Melbourne is £43,000.
  2. Unless unforeseen circumstances arise, it is expected that two national stations will commence operations before the end of this year.
  3. No decision has yet been made as to the date when the national television service will be extended to Brisbane.
  4. It is anticipated that commercial television services will be operating in Sydney and Melbourne before the end of 1957.

page 270

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 23rd February, Senator Arnold asked the following question:-

I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by stating that, in recent months, there has been much criticism ‘of the pensioner medical service. This criticism culminated in the publication of reports in the last issue of the official journal of the British Medical Association in New South Wales of serious malpractices by doctors in connexion with the medical benefits scheme. I ask the Minister whether he has seen those reports, and, if they are correct, what action does he propose to take to prevent this apparent widespread maladministration of the scheme?

The Minister for Health has now supplied the following information : -

Action is constantly being taken to discover and deal with cases of abuse of the pensioner medical service. Such cases arc dealt with through a system of disciplinary committees, comprising the Commonwealth Director of Health and four medical practitioners nominated by the British Medical Association. One nf these committees has been established in each State. When a committee reports adversely on a doctor, the Minister is empowered to disallow or reduce his claim foi payment, terminate his participation in the pensioner medical service, or revoke his authority to write prescriptions for pharmaceutical benefits. Action in one or more of these directions has been taken in a number of cases and notified in the Commonwealth Gazette. The position is constantly under review and, if necessary, consideration will be given to the adoption of additional safeguards against abuse.

page 270

QUESTION

LEUKEMIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 28th February, Senator Hendrickson asked the following question: -

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Commonwealth health authorities have received any details regarding the successful vaccine against leukemia, which is reported by Dr. joseph Beard of Duke University, United States of America? If not, will action be taken to ascertain what stage has been reached in regard to this important development, and particularly concerning the work on a human serum ?

The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

My department has no details of the reported successful vaccine against leukemia. Inquiries are being made into the matter and the honorable senator will be advised at a later date if any detailed information is received.

page 271

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table the following paper:-

Economic Measures - Statement by the Prime Minister dated 14th March, 1956.

The statement read as follows: -

On the 27th September last, I made a statement to the House on the condition of the national economy. I do not propose to repeat that statement but I should recall to honorable members the substance of the analysis of our current problems which was then made. We are as a nation, enjoying a high measure of prosperity. Our purpose is to preserve and consolidate it. To achieve these purposes, we must be prepared to face up to the factors which tend to destroy prosperity by aggravating our costs, to the inflation of our currency, and to the great task of maintaining and building our trading position in the world.

At that time, I said that we were experiencing a high and growing money purchasing power, not capable of being satisfied by Australian production, and that we had, therefore, developed a vast demand for imported goods putting an immense strain upon our external balance of payments. I pointed out that our level of wages and costs, partly arising from the competition for scarce labour, generated by excessive demands, was threatening our export capacity. I added that the terms of trade were tending to move adversely to us and that, in consequence, a greater volume of exports was needed to pay for a fixed volume of imports. This led to the conclusion that our economy was tending to become unbalanced, with a disposition in favour of a permanent debit on our international trading account.

We proceeded, in September, to impose further restrictions upon imports, in order to help to arrest the fall in our international reserves and therefore to check the threat that would otherwise arise to our- exchange rate.

It has previously been made clear that the excessive demand for imports (which has been restrained but not destroyed by import restrictions) arises from the inflationary impact of excessive demand for both capital and consumption goods upon a limited supply of both. On the capital side, we are, in Australia, trying to spend on investment twice as much as our current savings. To the extent to which the deficit cannot be financed by borrowing other people’s savings from overseas, the inevitable result is inflation with higher costs and prices all round.

It was therefore made clear, in September, that our objective was to restore our balance of payments by the end of June this year; to assist that object by import restrictions; and to make it certain, if necessary, by adopting fiscal or other measures which would restrain local inflation, diminish import demand, preserve our currency on the international markets and enable us to develop our position as a trading nation.

In my September statement, I discussed in some detail the problem of the balance of payments and of our international reserves, and endeavoured to explain the importance of achieving a balance by the end of June, 1956. As I then pointed out, our international reserves, which stood at £570,000,000 in June, 1954, had fallen by June, 1955, to £428,000,000. Notwithstanding import restrictions the fall continued during the next six months so that by the end of December last, the reserves stood at about £370,000,000. The main reason for this fall was, of course, that we were still importing too much. We have had good seasons and it is almost certainly true that in this current financial year 1955-56 we have had a greater tonnage of goods available for export than ever before in our history. We also have had a quite substantial amount of capital inflow. I hope that no honorable member will think that the measures I am tonight announcing will discourage the investment of capital in Australia from overseas. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that a continuing inflation discourages overseas investment but that a clearly demonstrated determination to produce internal stability encourages it.

The dominating cause of our external payments deficiency is the striking increase in the annual value of our imports and this in tura represents a demand which is the inevitable, product of internal inflation.

I am happy to say to honorable members that in the light of our experience to date and having regard to our additional import restrictions and to the measures which I am tonight announcing, there is every reason to suppose that our objective, of balancing our external accounts by the middle of this year, will be achieved. If that forecast proves to be right, the first vital step in righting our position will have been accomplished. Measures beyond import restrictions are of course necessary if we are to have a lasting cure.

To achieve economic health, we must, clearly, increase our output, or reduce our demand, or both.

An increase in national and individual, output is clearly essential to the raising of the material standards of living. What does increased output mean and involve? The answer is - greater productivity per unit. On the farms this means such things as sowing down and top dressing of pastures, better subdivision and water supply, more power and machinery. Farm production has been improving, the significance of the improvement somewhat obscured by price falls. But without this and without increases in industrial production, our situation would be serious. In short, increased productivity is of the essence. It cannot, therefore, be overlooked in any longrange planning for national development.

Intrinsically, it cannot have immediate short term results, for in its nature it is a matter of relatively slow growth ; though none the less vital for that.

But the attack on the productivity problem is still a matter for urgent attention. It is the positive, as opposed to the negative, of economic action. A constant appreciation of its importance induces an active and dynamic attitude, and serves to defeat stagnation. We have not yet fully understood that rapidly increasing population, industrial expansion, adequate national defence, high and stable employment, just social services, and rising real standards for the individual - to all of which we are as a nation dedicated - cannot be simultaneously achieved without increasing skill, organisation, and effort. To put it quite clearly, we cannot have increased development and increased individual consumption without increased individual production, saving and investment.

Time will not permit me to elaborate this important thesis. But one point emerged from our recent discussions with our advisory committee and among ourselves. It is that because a good deal of existing capital equipment is not being fully or economically used, some material increases in production could be achieved even without additional investment; in other words, without further inflationary demand pressure upon limited capital resources. My colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, has an employer-employee committee - the Ministry of Labour Advisory Council - which has already given thought to this matter. If it can give some concentrated attention to this matter and perhaps become an effective Productivity Council, we will welcome it. There can be no doubt that there is an urgent need to examine the possibilities of making greater use of our existing industrial capacity by such means as double shifts.

I turn now to the other aspect of this problem. In Australia, wages and salaries are high, employment is more than full, and, therefore, purchasing power and demand are at record levels. It seems to be a merely academic exercise to try to determine whether the excessive demand and therefore the inflation arises from demand for consumption goods or from demand for capital investment. The simple truth is that any excessive demand for consumption goods is bound to produce a corresponding demand to import those goods or for capital investment to produce them. No responsible person can doubt that we are, in fact, undergoing a very great inflationary pressure, a pressure which cannot be relieved by mere prohibitions any more than the pressure in a steam engine can be relieved by ‘closing the safety valve. To the extent to which we can increase productivity, we will ease the pressure. To the extent to which we can increase our exports, we will relieve the consequential effect upon our balance of payments. But the truth is that, in the short run, the most effective immediate way to relieve the pressure is to reduce the volume of purchasing power which creates it.

It is inevitable that properly considered taxation measures should be the most powerful immediate instruments. We have considered increases in taxation, not merely in bookkeeping terms, but with our eye constantly upon the effect which the selected taxation may have upon capital demand inside Australia and import demand outside Australia. . In brief, any increases in taxation should be designed as far as possible to reduce inflation. In the light of these considerations we have decided upon the following courses of action: -

  1. In order to cut expenditure which promotes a high level of imports and also greatly increases an unsatisfied internal capital demand, we propose to have additional taxation upon motor vehicles and petrol.
  2. In order to secure added revenue from items which are not the most essential and which should, therefore, make the fullest contribution to the elimination of deficit finance, we have decided to impose additional taxes on beer, spirits, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars.
  3. In order to impose a check upon investment spending which although valuable is at present in total beyond the capacity of either saving or borrowing to provide, we propose to increase company taxation.
  4. We propose to increase certain sales taxes upon less essential goods.

When I have concluded my statement, various legislative measures will be introduced and explained. I will, therefore, content myself by stating the substance of these fiscal proposals.

The present rate of sales tax on passenger cars, that is, non-commercial motor vehicles, is16 per cent. This rate will be increased to 30 per cent. Not only do motor vehicles and their components constitute a substantial item in our imports, but they also represent the bulk in value of hire purchase transactions and they have, in fact, generated a vast capital demand inside Australia. We are well aware of the benefits which will ultimately flow from this great industry, but we are convinced that proper counter-inflationary action requires that some temporary restraint should be laid upon it.

Commercial motor vehicles and motor cycles now carry a sales tax rate of 12½ per cent. There is a powerful case for imposing as small an additional burden upon commercial motor vehicles as possible. We, therefore, propose to raise the level of tax in the case of these items only from 12½ to 16 per cent.

I would not have it thought that we are in any sense hostile to the motor vehicle industry. On the contrary, we regard it as one of the great and growing industries of Australia and we have welcomed the transfer of capital and skill from other countries to our own. But this does not relieve us of the obligation to do what we can to prevent a good thing from distorting the general economic balance of the country. In other words, a large demand for and supply of motor vehicles in Australia is a good thing. But an excessive demand may to the extent to which it creates inflationary pressures actually damage those export industries upon which our international solvency depends.

Let me give the House a few significant figures. The registrations of new motor vehicles have risen from 156,996 in 1952-53 to 245,271 in 1954-55. If we turn to new motor vehicles, we will find that whereas the sales of trucks and utilities have maintained a fairly stable average over the last four or five years, the large increase has been in the items of motor cars.

The imports attributable to the motor industry in the last financial year, i.e. vehicles and parts, rubber and other tyre materials, motor spirit and oil were estimated at no less that £152,000,000 out of total imports in that year of £844,000,000.

Goods of a less essential character, ranging from jewellery to gramophone records, are now included in the category which carries a rate of16 per cent. Subject to the special provision I have named about passenger cars, there will be an increase in this category from 16 to 25 per cent.

Apart from commercial motor vehicles and motor cycles, all those items which are now in the 12½ per cent, category will continue to carry 12½ per cent, without increase.

The same applies to the 10 per cent group, which includes a variety of household goods and appliances, furniture, crockery and the like, and will not bear any increased tax.

All told these increases in sales tax are estimated to produce in a full year additional revenue of approximately £30,000,000.

Notwithstanding the natural reactions to so sensitive a subject, beer can plainly carry more taxation than it does. We therefore propose to increase the excise on beer by 2s. 8d. per gallon, which is equal to 2d. per 10-oz. glass. Beer will, assuming that demand continues unabated, yield an additional £29,300,000 in a full year at the current rate of clearances. We have no over-optimistic anticipation that this increase will reduce the consumption of beer. But it will certainly make a powerful contribution to the avoidance of deficit finance. It is a matter of note that when, in the 1951-52 Budget, we increased the excise on beer by 2s. 7d. a gallon, there were some prophecie’s of drought and even of financial loss. I should therefore point out that the clearances after that Budget rose from 172,900,000 gallons in 1951-52 to183,800,000 in 1953-54, and in the current estimate are calculated to rise to 223,300,000 gallons, a truly staggering total. Consumption of beer per head of population has doubled since 1938-39.

In the case of spirits, where the revenues are naturally much smaller, we established in the 1954-55 budget a special margin in favour of brandy, in which the large wine and grape industry is concerned, by reducing theexcise on brandy by 30s.a proof gallon. We propose to increase the customs and excise duties on spirits by15s.6d. a gallon. This increase will still leave brandy with its present margin, will be equivalent to an increase of1d. per nip, and will on the current level of clearances yield £2,200,000 per annum.

We propose to increase the existing duties on tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes as follows; by 4s. per lb. on manufactured tobacco, equal to a retail price increase of 3d. per oz; in the case of cigarettes by6s. per lb. equal to an increase in the case of a standard type of 3d. per packet of 20; and cigars by 5s. 6d. per lb. From these proposals, we will expect to get in a full year added revenue of £12,000,000.

Petrol involves a large imported component. We propose an additional tax of 3d. a gallon on petrol which will, at the current level of clearances, yield an additional £12,000,000 per annum. We have, at the same time, given earnest consideration to the question of the assistance to roads given under the Commonwealth Aid Roads legislation. Two years ago, we made a very substantial improvement in this field by providing for a payment to the States of 7d. a gallon on petrol consumed.. This will as on and from 1st April, 1956 be increased on the existing conditions, which provide for not less than 40 per cent, being expended on rural roads, to 3d. a gallon which will represent approximately an additional £4.000.000 on the roads grant.

Summing it up, and allowing for the additional payment for roads, all these changes in customs and excise duties will in a full year yield net additional revenue approximating £51,000,000.

We are not proposing any increase in personal income tax.

We do, however, consider that company taxation can properly be increased to some extent. Companies have in fact enjoyed a period of great prosperity and can afford to make some contribution to the solution of the current problem. The taxable income of public and private companies has risen very considerably since 1951-52, rates of dividends have increased and there have been substantially greater allocations to reserves. The weight of company taxation is undoubtedly much lower in Australia than in overseas countries like the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. We propose, therefore, to increase company tax all round by1s. in the £1. This, it is anticipated will yield in a full year £30,000,000. In the nature of things itwill not become operative for collection purposes until the next financial year, in which year we would expect to collect £27,800,000.

I indicated in my economic statement of September last, and also in my recent policy speech, that we would hold ourselves ready to use any fiscal measures which were needed, not only to reduce the volume of imports as a measure supplementary to direct import restrictions, but also as a corrective to inflation What I havejust announced represents our carefully considered proposals to these ends.

It is, I think, necessary that I should point out that these measures are not depression measures; they are designed to preserve our existing prosperity by checking inflation and therefore making our prosperity more stable and more secure. It will, I hope, be widely understood that you cannot cure inflation by doing nothing. You can cure it only by endeavouring to diagnose its causes and then taking such measures as are possible to deal with those causes. It is in the light of these considerations that this special financial programme is’ submitted to the Parliament and to the people. Our current problems are all manageable, and no exaggerated feelings need be created by them.

I have already explained how the Government has reached its conclusion that taxation should he employed in selected ways to provide a form of brake upon consumption and investment spending. I will in a few moments explain that we also have in prospect a cash deficit on the total operations of this financial year. What, however, are we to take as the appropriate measure of the amount of additional taxation that should now be imposed? Unless we gain additional resources the cash deficit for the current year would certainly not be less than £30,000. Clearly, certainly not be less than £30,000,000. Clearly, however, this deficit arises out of conditions which, largely, are now behind us, whereas it is obvious that we must shape our financial measures as far as may he practicable to meet circumstances that lie ahead.

There could he no problem more difficult than the accurate measurement of our financial resources and commitments in a period extending some fifteen months from the present time. The estimating of taxation revenues is, even under stable conditions, a most intricate business and a problem into which all manner of imponderable elements find their way. It becomes doubly difficult if the forward prospect is influenced by the currents and cross-currents of inflation. At the very best, we can only make a judgment based upon considerations of the broadest kind.

One of the great pitfalls of policy in a period such as the present is that, at first, inflation makes government financing look easy. With rising incomes and rising levels of expenditure revenues tend to be buoyant, and if we were prepared to contemplate that the current trends in incomes and levels of expenditure would continue unrestrained throughout the next financial year, we could, no doubt, look forward to a very substantial increase in revenues. Plainly, however, the Government cannot permit itself to rely upon such an optimistic view of things. It would in truth be to suppose that the object of our economic policy measures will not have been accomplished. Therefore, the only view to take is that, though there will be some increase in the revenues in 1956-57, that increase will not bc of the magnitude which continued inflation might produce.

It is also a pitfall of policy in a time of inflation that while revenues rise first, a little later on expenditures begin to rise also. Costs of all kinds begin to creep upwards. Various unforeseen contingencies suddenly present themselves. The point almost inevitably comes when, no matter how far revenues may have increased, expenditures are found to have risen above them.

We already begin to perceive signs of such a movement in our own budget and in those of the State governments. Although therefore it will be our policy to apply the most rigorous restraints upon government expenditure of all kinds, we cannot ignore the likelihood that expenditures in some fields at any rate must next year be substantially higher than in the current year.

There is one circumstance also of special significance for any forecasting of possibilities in 1950-57. In that year a very large amount of public debt, comprising three major loans and totalling some £253,000,000, will reach maturity at intervals throughout the year. We shall, of course, do our utmost to convert as much as possible of this debt into new securities. The amount, however, is extremely large in relation to the market. It would, moreover, be sheer folly to fail to recognize that borrowing conditions in 1956-57 may be more than usually difficult. That must affect both the prospect for converting old loans and the prospect for raising new loans such as may be required for finance of the works programmes of the States.

These are the broad considerations which we face in trying to form a judgment of what additional resources in the shape of revenue we may require if we are to preserve a condition of balance in our public accounts in terms of cash receipts and outlay. Our carefully considered judgment has been that the amount we require will be somewhere between £100,000,000 and £120.000.000. the details of which I have set before you.

May I deal briefly with the argument that increased taxes merely transfer spending power from private persons to governments, and that private persons can spend their money more prudently and effectively than governments can. I will not discuss this as a general proposition, except to say two things.

The first is that government expenditures on public works are, so far as we are concerned, made to satisfy public requirements which cannot, in their nature, be transferred to private citizens. No group of private citizens could be expected to provide for national defence, for such vast works as the Snowy Mountains scheme, for postal, telegraphic and telephone capital expenditure, for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the National Debt.

But there is another unavoidable fact now emerging, the significance of which not only to the overall budget but also to counterinflationary .policy, cannot be overlooked. It is this. We have, for 1955-56, budgeted for a surplus of £48,700,000. In spite of some enthusiastic but unofficial estimates, made some months before the end of the financial year, our advices are that the estimate will be substantially correct. But the revenue budget is not all. i

We have, in addition, accepted some responsibilities in respect of the borrowing programme approved by the Loan Council; a programme which, leaving aside the Housing allocation which the Commonwealth raises for the States, £8,000,000 for war service land settlement and £3,000,000 for wheat storage, is actually for State Works. The State of the loan market has been such that the Commonwealth will find itself called upon to find for the States from its own resources, a sum not less than £67,000,000. Moreover, cash has already had to bc provided to meet heavy redemptions in the loan which matured last December. We are thus confronting an overall cash deficit, not a surplus. As I have already said, the cash deficit will not be less than £30,000,000 unless between now and 30th June we obtain additional resources.

Without such additional revenue, this deficit would need to be financed by the Commonwealth Bank by the creation of new money which would add to the existing heavy inflationary pressure. Reducing or avoiding a cash deficit is therefore not only a matter of balancing the Commonwealth’s accounts; it is, most importantly, a matter of avoiding the aggravation of an inflation which it is our principal economic purpose to restrain and defeat. Money out of the existing supply of purchasing power which is transferred by taxation to the Commonwealth is not inflationary. New Money, created by the central bank to finance a deficit, is inflationary.

Under the circumstances of the market, the central bank, has, until quite recently, felt called upon to support bond prices by abnormal (and, in total, huge) purchases, this again involving the creation and outlay of many millions of new money. This is inflationary.

On top of these matters, there are two other factors which cannot be ignored.

The first is that, with rising costs, the State governments may encounter additional deficits this year.

The second is that the central bank finances the payments made by the Wheat Board to wheat-growers, and, for well-known reasons, carries a large cash debit on that account.

It follows from all this that, in addition to the general inflation arising from high purchasing power, excessive demand for capital, a shortage of labour and of over-all supply, and inadequate national productivity, we have an added inflation by central bank deficit finance which no government can comfortably contemplate, and which fiscal measures alone can correct.

I propose to take the time of the House to discuss interest rates; because there are certain current misconceptions about them.

In an inflationary .period when capital, labour and materials are all relatively hard to come by, there will be pressures upon the price nf money just as there is competition for labour with increased wages, and for scarce materials with increased prices.

The feature of the last few years in the money market in Australia is not that interest rates have been consciously forced up but that they have, in fact, been held down. The bond rate, as I said to the House on Thursday last, has been largely held down by abnormal purchases by the central bank. The bank rates of overdraft and deposit have been held down by the adherence of the trading banks to an agreement with the Commonwealth Bank.

What should we do about these matters? Should we pursue the measures necessary to hold down interest rates longer, or should we face the facts I have already told the House that it would be self-contradictory for the Commonwealth Bank, residing as it does at the centre of monetary and credit control, to say with one breath to the trading banks that they must restrict credit and, after the next breath, to go on an abnormal scale into the market and create new money in order to buy bonds.

If this is right, as I believe it to be, it becomes necessary to turn to interest rates generally. The Commonwealth Government has no authority over interest rates charged in non-banking business. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a feeling that this might be coped with by taxation measures; but he will be the first to agree with me that there will be no certainty of the validity of such measures and that it follows that, in the short run, they are not a useful instrument. In the long run, we will consider them. But we do have something to say about the deposit and overdraft rates of the banks. Should they be raised or, more accurately, should they be permitted to rise? Would a rise in the overdraft rate have some use as a counterinflationary measure? If it would, we should most obviously consider it. On this point as on many others, we have had the advantage of the views of a powerful advisory committee and of close and prolonged discussions within the Government itself. Our conclusions may be stated in this way.

A rise in interest rates will not of itself solve our problem. Recent experience in the United Kingdom and other countries overseas confirms this view. But a rise in bank overdraft rates must have some effect, the extent of which cannot be precisely measured, upon the demand on the banks for capital accommodation. We, in Australia, do not have a large and established short-term money market as they have in London and New York. We therefore, have no bank rate which can be used as a flexible instrument. Whatever ve do must reflect itself in overdraft rates and deposit rates and, of course, depending upon the circumstances of the market, in the longterm bond rate. The Government believes that a rise in interest rates should be permitted only if it is part of a general pattern of counter-inflationary action.

I pause here to indicate some of the circumstances which lead to the conclusion that it is impracticable to hold the overdraft and deposit rates down to what has become an unreal level. There are reasons for this. Under the circumstances now existing, the trading banks have found that funds are being diverted from fixed deposits to finance expenditure at much higher short-term rates of interest on hirepurchase and the like ventures. The financing of enterprises on bank overdraft at the present relatively cheap level has been resorted to increasingly. The reasons for this are clear enough. If a company raises capital by a new share issue, it must succeed sufficiently to pay an- adequate dividend on that capital. But if it raises money on bank overdraft, then the whole interest charge on that overdraft is a business expenditure which can be deducted for taxation purposes and the amount of the overdraft does not call for a dividend. One of the chief results of this is to stimulate businesses to rely unduly on bank accommodation. Again, there are many instances of overseas enterprises which are able to borrow from the banking system at an overdraft rate which is relatively low and then to remit surplus funds abroad to take advantage of higher rates overseas. This leads to the creation of a greater reliance upon borrowing in Australia rather than overseas for the development of local business. It also has led to a greater reliance upon .borrowing in Australia rather than overseas for the financing of exports, including the major export of wool. Under all these circumstances, we have felt it necessary to consider whether the overdraft rates and the deposit rates of the banks should be permitted to rise to some reasonable extent. In considering this matter, we have been naturally profoundly concerned about the position of the export industries whose costs rise under the pressure of local circumstances but whose prices are determined by world markets.

Having regard to what has happened in the bond market, and to the other’ circumstances to which I have referred, we have agreed (I say “agreed” because interest rates are at present adjusted by agreement between the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks) that the bank overdraft rate should be permitted to rise from 5 per cent, to an average of 5i per cent, with a maximum of 6 per cent. At the same time, we have agreed that there should be a rise in the bank deposit rates, i.e. the interest rates paid by the banks on fixed deposits made by their customers, of 1 per cent. This requires a little explanation.

We do not intend that the profits of the trading banks should rise as a result of any counter-inflationary action taken by us. There are, indeed, various ways and means by which this can, if necessary, be dealt with by government action. But I think I should say quite plainly that the trading banks have been cooperating extremely well with the central bank on the general restraint of credit and other counter-inflationary measures and we see no reason to believe that this will not continue. This is why we have indicated our approval of an average rise in overdraft rates to 5i per cent. The purpose of this decision is this. One of the objects of allowing bank rates to rise is to counter inflation. If bank accommodation becomes more expensive, the capital demands upon the banks will tend to fall. But there are other aspects of the matter. Our desire is to impose no avoidable burden upon the export industries or substantially import saving industries, whether those industries are primary or secondary. We therefore expect that if the banks are permitted to raise their average overdraft rate to 5J per cent., they will have effective overdraft rates both below and above the level. We expect that the lower overdraft rates will be employed in aid of important production and import saving, and that the higher overdraft rates will be employed to restrain inflation. An increase in the banks’ deposit rates may be expected to direct into the fixed deposit field some amount of money which at present seeks profitable short-term employment in other fields. We will closely watch the results of these decisions because, and again I repeat it, our purpose is to recognize the stern facts of tininterest position and, at the same time, to avoid any building up of banking profits as a result of the new limits allowed to the overdraft rate.

Finally, I repeat what I said last week; that though undoubtedly any increase in overdraft rates may have some prima facie effect upon the export industries, that effect will be small compared to the ruinous effect which an unrestrained inflation could and would have upon their costs and upon their capacity to sell to a competitive world.

As I told the House in September last, conscious efforts have been made to restrain the volume of bank credit. Without such restraint, counter-inflationary action would be frustrated. We have reached the conclusion that the restriction of credit has gone as far as it reasonably could, and therefore that while present policies must be maintained they need not be intensified. We have therefore decided that new action in the economic field must direct itself to other measures.

We recognize that any increase in taxation or interest rates tends to operate against the production of goods for export, which is principally from the land. But it is quite true that if tax and interest measures are effectively designed to check inflation, the export producer will achieve a substantial benefit. We have, however, given close consideration to the special depreciation allowances for primary producers which permit them to write off at 20 per cent, per annum over five years capital expenditures incurred in respect of plant, machinery, certain structural improvements, and residential accommodation for employees, tenants, or share farmers to the extent of £2,000 per employee. The current legislation, which has brought about very great benefits, is due to expire on the 30th June, 1956. Legislation will be promptly introduced to extend the act for a further three years from the 1st July, 1956, and to provide that the present limit in respect of expenditures incurred in the erection of residential accommodation for employees, tenants and share farmers, namely, £2,000 for an employee and his family be raised to £2,750.

There may be a good deal to be said for introducing selectivity into the demand for capital by some system of capital issues control like the one which existed during the war and was thereafter for a time continued under the defence power. But our legal advisers do not believe that capital issues control could be re-instituted for purposes of anti-inflationary action. The whole problem may well be one for discussion with the States, who have the necessary powers, but for present purposes any discussion of that problem would be premature.

The same applies to the vexed problem of hire-purchase finance. Various suggestions have been put forward for dealing with this matter, but each of them involves action of doubtful constitutional validity, and could hardly, therefore, be relied upon to produce immediate results. What I have announced about interest rates and taxation may, of course, have some effect in this field.

There is some disposition to accuse government expenditure and particularly works expenditure of responsibility for internal inflationary capital demand. The truth is that in the last four years, government capital expenditures have remained at least constant in terms of money, The large growth in capital demand has been in the private sector. All our own political beliefs run in favour of private enterprise. But I think it would be unjust even to appear to encourage the popular belief that government expenditure is in its nature either commonly extravagant or unproductive. Let me say just a few words about this. For some years now the works programmes being undertaken by public authorities in Australia have involved an expenditure running around £400,000,000 a year. Works related to transport, such as railways, roads, streets, bridges and so on, add up to about £130,000,000 a year. The railways are still vital to our transport system. Without constant modernization, they will not only fail to perform their important functions, but will produce large and growing annual deficits.

The next great group of about £100,000,000 in the. works programmes comprises those for power and fuel, particularly for electrical power development. The development of our power resources is something which is not done for governments but for private industries and people.

Then there is another group - dwelling construction and water supply and sewerage. These take up something like £00,000,000 a year. I doubt whether any Australian would seriously criticize them.

Communications involve an annual expenditure ranging between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000 per year. Businesses and private citizens would be the first to complain if the expenditure on telegraphic and telephonic and postal facilities came to an end, or was substantially reduced.

What I have said does not mean there must not be prudence and careful review and the elimination of extravagance. But it is still true that private industrial development and social improvement depend to a marked extent upon properly chosen and well executed public works. We will, of course, review all these matters for the new financial year, but they certainly do not lend themselves to sudden intermediate decisions two-thirds of the way through a financial year.

There arc many items of national budgetary expenditure which do not lend themselves to reduction at all, except by repudiation or dramatic changes of national policy.

Thus, our accumulated debt service, interest and sinking fund, now standing at £68,000,000, cannot be reduced without repudiation. Our normal payments (now £220,000,000) to the States cannot be reduced without a drastic reconstruction of Commonwealth-States financial relations. Our expenditure on social services (now £218,000,000) cannot be reduced without changes of social policy to which the great majority, both inside Parliament and outside, would be opposed. Of the total expenditure of the Commonwealth, say £1,100,000,000, no less than £700,000,000, representing social services, debt service payments to the States, repatriation benefits, and expenditure on the Post Office and other business undertakings, are not only not susceptible to reduction, but are found, in the nature of things, to tend to increase.

We find, therefore, that the possible avenues for producing a lesser net expenditure are (without exhausting the list) such items as the defence vote, Commonwealth works expenditure, payments to the States in support of loan programmes, departmental functions and staffing, and the migration programme. These items also do not lend themselves to sudden alteration at this stage of the financial year. But I want to say that each of these matters i3 now being closely reviewed for purposes of the next Budget. In September last, 1 announced, and we have sustained, a reduction in Commonwealth works expenditure. The loan works programme of the States has in fact been held at a substantially stable level (in terms of money) during the past three years, and has therefore been reduced in physical terms. The migration programme, which adds to capital demand in Australia but makes a notable contribution to current production and national security, will be reviewed before the next budget with a view to establishing some stability of intake at a manageable and adequate level.

It would, of course, be wrong to discuss our economic problems exclusively in short terms. We in Australia have great achievement in the past and confident hopes for the future. We have succeeded to a remarkable extent in building up our population, our productive capacity and our living standards. We have been able to provide a happy and well furnished life for the great bulk of our people. We have certain national objectives to which all our major efforts must be directed; a vigorous national development; adequate national defence; a high and stable level of employment at good wages and under civilized conditions; adequate measures of social security; an increasing and vigorous population. On some of these matters we have done a great deal; on others perhaps less than we should have liked to do. It would be a great error to suppose that the Government is announcing any abandonment of any of these objectives. The short-term task to which my statement of to-night must primarily be directed is to determine what temporary modifications we must make in our current demands so that our ultimate demands may be soundly satisfied.

In every story of - national progress, there must be advances with every now and then some period of consolidation of our gains. This does not mean we have to advance and then to retreat. There is a vital difference between retreating from positions attained or abandoning ultimate objectives, and having a sensible period of consolidation so that the next advance may be made from firmly secured positions.

There is no great nation in the world which does not regard the inflationary problem as a vital one. Therefore, when we take the necessary steps to meet inflation we are not only preserving our own legitimate interests at home but we are inducing abroad a proper measure of confidence in our country and of willingness to contribute in practical terms to its future growth and development.

All the main indicators in the economy show a high level of current prosperity. Additional recent facts support this conclusion. But prosperity needs to be understood if it is to bc preserved. Like so many other good things it tends to generate forces which may turn out to be adverse to it. In this statement, some of those forces have been discussed and some counteracting measures offered. It should be continually emphasized that we are neither anticipating nor seeking to meet a depression, still less to make one. What we are trying to d(< is to prevent some elements in our prosperity from aggravating an inflation which could, if left alone, undermine our prosperity. That is why I say that all the adverse factors are manageable provided ‘that we are prepared to prefer a lasting prosperity to a temporary boom and what, if uncontrolled, could be its unhappy consequences. It may occasionally suit individuals to gamble upon inflation. But such a gamble can never be the true policy for a young and growing nation, seeking to build an expanding future upon solid and secure foundations.

I am not so inexperienced as not to know that the statement I have just made, for my colleagues and myself, will be the subject of controversy. But most people will see, on reflection, that our programme of action is, having regard to our problems, a moderate and balanced one. If we had done more, we might have done too much and created fears which we ourselves certainly do not entertain. If we had done less, or, as some may advocate, nothing, we would certainly have exposed the economic well-being of millions of Australian men and women to the destructive attacks of a growing and ultimately unrestrained inflation.

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) proposed -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna.) adjourned.

page 278

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motions (by Senator McKenna) - by leave - agreed to - .

That leave of absence for one month be granted to Senator Ashley on account of ill health.

That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Aylett on account of ill health.

That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Devlin on account of ill health.

That leave of absence for one month In granted to Senator Toohey on account of il health.

page 278

QUESTION

CANBERRA

REPORT op Select Committee.

Senator MCCALLUM (New South

Wales) [3.39]. - I move-

That the report of the Select Committee on the Development of Canberra, presented to the

Senate on the 29th September, 1955. be considered.

I wish, first, to thank all my colleagues on the committee, as well as the secretary of it, the witnesses, and many others who have helped to make this report possible. I think it is a very valuable report. I should like to say that the committee, which was bi-partisan in its composition has been non-partisan in its activities. Many of the recommendations contained in the report were agreed to unanimously, and most of the opinions held by members of the committee, after hearing evidence, also were unanimous. There was not a single division on partisan lines. It is true that two separate reports have been presented, one dealing with a single point, and the other with a number of points, hut both of them were submitted by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. I think we can say that the report is not the product of any political party, or of individuals, but of the Senate as a whole. As honorable senators know, the committee was set up as the result of a unanimous vote of the Senate. Some amendments were proposed, but they were not carried. Nevertheless, the Opposition cheerfully agreed to the motion to set up the committee, which has had the wholehearted support of honorable member on both sides.

The first thing to be said about the report, at this stage, is that it is both a long-range and a short-range document.

It would be idle for any one to imagine that many of the things that we have recommended should be carried out at once, or even that the committee wants them to be carried out at once; but it would be equally wrong to think that members of the committee were simply looking forward to the remote future. From the very beginning, the administration of Canberra has shown that too many things have been postponed for unborn generations to deal with them. First, as honorable senators know, the Griffin plan was accepted, but later it was set aside in favour of a plan drawn up by departmental officers. Then, when Mr. Griffin was brought to Australia, he could not work on the departmental plan, and the Griffin plan was reinstated. Although from time to time there have been modifications of that plan, the Walter Burley Griffin plan is the one that is being put into operation.

The report contains 76 recommendations, and a. majority of members of the. committee believe that every one of them is right. I cannot hope to speak on all of them, and so I shall confine my remarks to those recommendations which I regard as the most timely ones, although not necessarily the most important. It may be that many of those to which 1 shall make no reference are equally important. My colleagues on the committee will be able to speak for themselves, and so I propose to stress those things which seem to me to be of greatest importance.

The immediate task facing the Administration is that of providing housing accommodation for the public servants who ought to be here. I want to make it clear what we mean by that, because there has been a great deal of misconception on the point. The matter has been discussed in many quarters, and various press reports concerning Canberra reveal much misconception about this city. For instance, the committee was accused of doing all sorts of things, and of wanting to bring every public servant to Canberra, regardless of whether he ought to be here or- in some other locality. It is clear who should he in Canberra; heads of departments and those officers connected with the central administration should be here, but whether any other officer should be stationed in Canberra depends on the nature of his duties. It may well be that he can serve best in some other part of the Commonwealth. The important thing to bear in mind is that not at any time, excepting during the period when Sir John Butters was the chief commissioner of the Federal Capital Commission and it was necessary to get Parliament House built and have a skeleton staff here, has there been any determined effort to bring the central administration staffs to Canberra. We know from our contacts with various departments that some most important departments are still stationed in Melbourne. Whether the reason is lack of drive and energy, sloth or positive sabotage on the part of some people who are opposed to coming here, the fact remains that it is wrong that we should have this divided administration. The report gives many instances of inconvenience caused by divided staff. For instance, I have in mind one Minister who controls two departments, one of which has its central administration here, and the other its head office in Melbourne. A Minister may live in Queensland or in New South Wales, but the head office of his department is in Melbourne. It is obvious that administration and legislation go largely together, and the central branch of a department should be always where the legislature is.

Some of the causes for the delay in setting np Canberra as the genuine capital are beyond the control of any government. There have been two world wars which were natural hindrances to effective building. There was also the depression, but in my opinion that should not have been a hindrance. The thought of modern economists and others is that, a great opportunity was lost during the depression when private industry had ceased to operate at normal strength, and, in particular, when the building trade was in a slump. That was the very time to go ahead with certain parts of the project, but that great opportunity was lost because the thinking of the day was not abreast of the problems. Some of the undertakings which were regarded by some people as extravagant could have been done during that time of business recession. As far as I know, the only two works of great importance in Canberra during the early ‘thirties were two good roads. They are an example of what could have been done on a larger scale. The whole road system of Canberra, a road to the coast, and the artificial lake system in Canberra, could have been built, but the opportunity to do so was lost.

However, neither the wars nor the depression has been the real cause of the failure to establish Canberra as the capital city. The real trouble is inertia - inertia among senators and members in another place, among Ministers, and in the Public Service. One of the most vital matters to be dealt with is the completion of the transfer of administrative officers from Melbourne to Canberra. The administrative building, which is only the second permanent structure of its kind in Canberra - the Patents Office is the other, and many departments are still in temporary premises - will reach completion during either next year or the following year. Part of it will be ready for occupation soon. It is going up solidly and slowly, and most honorable senators have seen it rising from the ground during their terms of membership here. But when the office accommodation available in that building is aady, it will not be sufficient for all of the officers who will be brought to Canberra. Moreover, there still remains tho major problem of dwellings for those officers and their families.

I am stressing this project because it is something which jio one can attack, even though the general policy is to reduce public expenditure. This kind of public expenditure should not be reduced, because it is of twofold value. It is part of the great project of building the capital city and also of providing homes for the people. When families move from Melbourne or Sydney to Canberra the dwellings they vacate will be available for other families who need homes. It is a curious kind of reasoning to say that Melbourne or Sydney can be improved by increasing the number of their inhabitants. Both those cities obviously have grown beyond the normal -and decent, size for any Australian city, and the number of people cluttering them i:p is fi positive hindrance to the carrying out of the functions which they per form for their States and for the whole of Australia. There should be no diminution of the building programme for office accommodation and homes in Canberra, because both directly and indirectly the whole economy would benefit from the’ completion of that programme.

In the opinion of the committee the departmental method pf providing accommodation has been a failure. Public authorities are not adapted for that kind of work because they have not the imagination, vision, or energy to carry through a great building project. All Australian governments, State and Federal, and the Government of Great Britain have recognized that fact. They have set up semi-statutory bodies, outside the direct control of a Minister or the Cabinet, to do the job. An example has been provided in the early history of this Territory. A former Prime Minister, Mr. Bruce, acted in response to a nonparty resolution agreed to on non-party lines in another place that the capita] of Australia should be established here within a certain specified time, and he decided to get away from the departmental method of doing so. He appointed a vigorous and energetic man, Sir John Butters - who is still vigorous and energetic, so that he must have been much more so 30 years ago - to take the project in hand as a business undertaking. According to the evidence given before the Senate committee, that plan worked well. The project was commenced at a time similar to the present, when there was a boom and it was hard to obtain labour and materials, but Sir John and the commission pressed on, and the job was done.

The Senate committee in the present instance has not recommended the appointment of an exact replica of that commission, because certain faults were found with it, including political objections, with which I shall not deal. But a model scheme, which is now working successfully, is the Snowy Mountains Authority, which has been approved by both sides of the House. The original act setting up that authority was passed when the present Opposition was in power, and it has not been amended in any detail. In copying that set-up the

Senate committee has added certain suggestions which are necessary to give the people of Canberra some measure of selfgovernment. However, the actual constructing authority is modelled on the Snowy Mountains Authority. The committee considered other authorities, including some in England dealing with the building of new towns, but the Snowy Mountains Authority was considered to be the best possible pattern.

Even if there were only one department in complete control of the building of the capital, the evidence strongly points to the possibility that the work would proceed only in the slow, dawdling, doddering manner with which we have become familiar. On the other hand, if there is a firm authority and the right, man in control, one with vision and energy, willing to take advice and at the same time capable of trusting his own judgment, the work will be done much more expeditiously. The committee recommended that a Senate committee be set up. It is not intended that this should in any way interfere with the administration. Every member of the committee was fully seised of the importance of the system of responsible government which grew up in Great Britain, and to which the Commonwealth and all Australian States have constantly adhered. We received suggestions for other methods of control, quite outside the capital, but we rejected them. We did not think that they accorded with our Australian method of Government. Therefore, I emphasise that this Senate committee is not intended to be, in any sense, administrative. But the ‘Constitution, if honorable senators read it and the acts that have been passed, place responsibility for the protection of the Griffin plan not on the Executive, not on the Minister responsible, not on an official under the Minister, but very clearly on Parliament itself. By the various acts that govern it, every variation of the Griffin plan must be laid before both Houses of the Parliament, and it is competent for either House to reject such a variation. That has not always been done in the past.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I suppose it could be said to refer to substantial variations. They get away with a few little things, such as making a gutter slightly more curved here and there, but I think it will be found that some of the variations are not very substantial. I must confess to being very remiss myself, because 1 have known that variations have been suggested and have not been objected to, and I have not been aware until afterwards that they have been rejected. As honorable senators know, an enormous quantity of paper is laid on the table of the Senate. Every day, a Minister or the Clerk announces that certain papers are being laid there, and unless we are very attentive at that moment, or know that a paper dealing with a subject that we have at heart is going to be placed there, we probably take no notice of the procedure. In order that that shall not occur again, 1 suggest that there be a committee of the Senate to take automatically and consider every paper connected with Canberra and, if necessary, deliberate and report to the Senate about it. I think that that is the only way that we can be sure that the variations that are taking place are in the best interests of the capital and also of the Commonwealth.

Apart from these variations, a number of things have been done in a peculiar way, which we found it very hard to reconcile with proper administration. I shall refer to two of them. The first is the telephone exchange building near the Hotel Kurrajong. I did not know that that building was going up until I saw it When I saw it there, I thought it was a, temporary building, and I asked a question about it. I was amazed to find, from the Minister’s answer, that it was a permanent building. That building should have been referred to the National Capital Planning and Development Committee. Honorable senators will find the full story of it here in this report and I shall not weary them with it now, but the plain fact is that the Post Office was determined to get that building there. It did not get authority for such a building. It got authority for a good, permanent building, which people thought -would be a suitable structure, but by some sleight of hand, by some method which we could not track down - I suppose if we had kept at it for a year we could have done so, but we finally were quite satisfied that what we had discovered was sufficient to bring before Parliament for discussion and, I hope, reprimand - the present building was established. Everybody wanted to evade responsibility for it. Was it the responsibility of the Department of the Interior, of the Post Office, or of the Department of Works, All had a hand in it. None of them was proud of it. That kind of thing will go on again and again unless the Parliament is vigilant.

Another, and an even worse thing, is the building of some cottages of a rather poor type, although it is not so much the type of cottage as the siting of them that is objectionable. The cottages are of a mediocre type; they are very badly sited, the allotments are too small, and they are in one of the most beautiful building areas in Canberra. That project was never approved by the National Capital Planning and Development Committee.

Senator Henty:

– In what suburb are they?

Senator McCALLUM:

– They are on Narrabundah Heights. What was approved was that one or two of these cottages should be put up as a trial, to see how they looked, and before the National Capital Planning and Development Committee knew what was happening, the whole hillside was being covered with them. That shows a dispositionon the part of certain public servants to regard themselves as the authority that has the right to determine what should be done. That is not what is intended by the acts, nor is it what is intended by the Parliament. It is only our own lack of vigilance that has allowed that kind of thing to go on.

Sittinq suspended from, 4 to 8 p.m.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 282

MEAT EXPORT (ADDITIONAL CHARGE) BILL 1956

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal existing legislation relating to an export charge on meat, and to provide a new basis for collection of the. charge. The bill should be read in conjunction with the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Bill. The reason for the imposition of the charge was explained to honorable senators last June when the original legislation was introduced. There was, at that time, a clear understanding between the Minister and the beef producer members of the Australian Meat Board, who spoke on behalf of the beef cattle industry, that an export charge would be imposed if payments made by the board to support the prices paid for beef cattle for killing for export exceeded the amount due from the United Kingdom Government as deficency payments under the fifteen years meat agreement.

As honorable senators know, the fifteen years meat agreement between the Australian and United Kingdom governments provides that, if average prices on the United Kingdom market under open trade conditions over a year for beef, lamb or mutton are lower than the minimum price provided under the agreement, the United Kingdom Government will make a lump sum deficiency payment to the Australian Government in respect of the class or classes of meat involved.

The first year in which this arrangement operated commenced on the 1st October, 1954. In that year, prices were buoyant at first, but in March, 1955, prices for Australian beef in the United Kingdom slumped, and the price for cattle in those areas of Australia where large numbers are killed for export fell accordingly.

In anticipation of the earning of a substantia] deficiency payment on beef from the United Kingdom Government, the Australian Meat Board recommended that a bounty be paid while the price for live-stock remained low. The Government approved the proposal subject to the understanding referred to earlier that, if payments made to exporters were not balanced at the end of the season by receipts from the United Kingdom Government, an export charge during the following season would be imposed.

The legislation which implemented the arrangement comprised the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Act and the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act. Under this legislation, deficiency payments were made by the board on the first and second quality ox, heifer and cow beef placed into store for export to the United Kingdom at the rate of 1½d per lb. for the months of May to August, 1.955, and Id. per lb. for the month of September, 1955. The total amount paid out plus accrued interest amounted to over £800,000.

The effect of these payments was, as had been intended, to support cattle prices in export areas. For example, the price for beef at the Cannon Hill auction yards in Brisbane, which had fallen to 117s. per 100 lb. in April, 1955, rose under the influence of the export payment to 122s. in May, 126s. in June and July, 132s. in August, 133s. in September, and then commenced to fall in October, when the payment was no longer operative.

Responsible producer opinion in Queensland, the State chiefly affected, is that the deficiency payment experiment was most successful. However, due to a revival of prices over the later months of the selling season, the amount due from the United Kingdom at the end of the season amounted to only £152,000. An overpayment of about £650,000 will thus be seen to have occurred. A start has to be made to pay back this amount, which is owing to the Commonwealth Bank from which the board, with the backing of a government guarantee, secured finance by way of advances for its 1955 payments.

Early in January of this year, the board’s recommendation that an export charge of $d. per lb. be imposed for the month of February was approved.

In February, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry met a deputation from the board, and after that interview approved that a minimum rate of 1/8d. per lb. be fixed for the whole period from February to September of this year. It was agreed that this rate would be reviewed during the present month in the light of current conditions.

A further recommendation has not been received from the board, but two facts stand out. The first is that works’ prices in central Queensland are at present below the equivalent of the minimum price. The second is that beef prices in the United Kingdom are at present more than 3d. sterling per lb. below the guaranteed level, which is approximately 115s. per 100 lb. at Rockhampton, and that notional deficiency payments have been earned from the United Kingdom Government during each week of the present selling season.

At the meeting with the board deputation, both producer and exporter members requested a variation in the method of calculating the export charge. As the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act now stands, the charge is a straight export charge payable on meat of the kind and class fixed by the Minister on the recommendation of the board, which is exported to the United Kingdom during periods fixed by the Minister. The board now wishes the charge to be collected at the point of export to the United Kingdom, on meat which is placed into store during periods fixed by the Minister.

The bill now before the Senate gives effect to the board’s request. Exporters consider the amended basis will be more satisfactory as it will relieve them of the obligation of paying an export charge on meat produced from cattle bought before the rate of export charge was announced. Producers also welcome the change, inasmuch as they will know for certain when selling their cattle the rate of export charge the meat will incur, instead of having to forecast the time of export and the rate of charge, if any, that will be in force at that time.

The industry has been kept informed of the Government’s intentions regarding the imposition of the levy during 1956, and provision is contained in clause 9 of the bill for the rates already announced to be effective, on the new “ into store “ basis, from the 1st February. This is in keeping with the board’s recommendation.

When the bill was being drafted, it was found more convenient to repeal the 1955 act and reframe it than to amend it. Apart from the differences between the 1955 act and the present bill that I have described, the other alterations are of a purely procedural nature. There are, however, complementary provisions to this bill in the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Bill, and these provisions will be explained when that bill is introduced.

Debate (on motion by Senator CRITCHLEY) adjourned.

page 284

MEAT AGREEMENT (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1956

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make certain amendments to the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Act 1955 which will become necessary by reason of the repeal of the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act 1955 and its proposed replacement by the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act 1956. In my speech, on the second reading of the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Bill 1956, which, if passed by the Parliament will bring about the legislative change I have just mentioned, I explained the background to the change. However, as that bill is a taxing measure, it is necessary because of section 55 of the Constitution to introduce a separate measure incorporating incidental provisions not specifically of a taxing nature.

The separate measure is the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Bill, which contains two effective provisions. The first is set out in clause 3 of the bill and is a simple one enabling moneys collected under the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act 1956 to be naid from Consolidated Revenue to the Australian Meat Board, as would have been the case with any moneys collected under the 1955 act. The second is really a series of provisions, as set out in clauses 4 to 6 of the bill. These have been made necessary by the alteration to the method of calculating the export charge. Under the former method, the charge would simply have been payable on meat as it was exported and fairly complete details would have been available without any special powers being required by legislation for the purpose.

However, under the method introduced by the amending legislation, it will be necessary to rely to a large extent on information of the kind that can only be supplied by exporters, including information as to kinds and classes of meat placed into store from time to time. In effect, exporters will supply the same information for the purpose of paying the charge as they did in support of their claims for deficiency payments last year. Consequently, the present bill is intended to give the same power to the Minister to authorize persons to call for returns and information and to inspect books and accounts which are relevant to the charge as he has in relation to the making of deficiency payments. It also provides for the same penalties for false or misleading statements regarding the charge as exist in the case of offences involving deficiency payments.

Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.

page 284

FISHERIES BILL 1956

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time. -By arrangement with the States the administration of the licensing provisions of the Fisheries Act is carried out by the State officers acting under delegated powers. In order to bring the licensing period for Commonwealth licences and registrations into line with the majority of the States the Commonwealth Fisheries Act provided for all licences to expire on the 31st December following the date of issue. Most of the States have made provision in their legislation for licences issued during December to remain in force until the 31st December of the following year. The purpose of this amendment is to make the same provision in the Commonwealth legislation and thereby make at possible for the State officers to issue licences and effect registration where applicable in December at the same time as they issue the State licences. Since most fishermen required to take out licences will apply for renewal of their State licences in December, the amendment to the act will remove the inconvenience to fishermen of having to apply at separate times for their State and Commonwealth licences.

In addition to the advantage to the fishermen the amendment will prove of considerable assistance to the licensing officers because it will reduce the work load by spreading the licensing over a longer period. The Government’s legal advisers suggest the inclusion of section 2 (i) to remove any difficulty which might be -created by a licensee holding two licences when a licence is renewed in December. In such cases a licence issued in December could be dated to take effect from the 1st January following. The amendment to the act is purely a machinery change and in view of the advantages which it will offer both to the fiishermen and to the State issuing officer I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator CRITCHLEY adjourned.

page 285

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Presentation to the Governor-General.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - I desire to inform the Senate that this day, accompanied by honorable senators, I waited on the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency’s Speech on the occasion of the opening of the first session of the Twenty-second Parliament, agreed to on the 1st March. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: -

Mr. President,

Thank you foi- your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me.

It will afford me much pleasure to convey’ to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the Address gives expression.

page 285

CANBERRA

Report of Select Committee

Debate resumed (vide page 282)..

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– Before the sitting was suspended I had suggested that neither House had acted as a faithful watchdog over the building of this city, and as a remedy, or one of the remedies, I suggested that a committee of the Senate bc set up. Such a committee would noi interfere in any way with the administration of the city, but would watch any developments which seemed to threaten the plan, and would bring before the notice of the Senate particularly any modifications that were gazetted or about to be gazetted. Of course, the other Bouse could do this, and if it does, the Senate could have no objection. I think, however, there is a peculiar reason why the Senate should act as guardian of the Federal Capital. This chamber was set up as a States House and its peculiar function is to look after the interests of the States as States distinct from the interests of constituencies or mere districts. I believe the Senate is particularly fi tted to carry out this task.

The Federal Capital is the property of the States as States and it is in the interests of all States that its development be along the lines laid down by the Constitution. For that reason, I strongly urge on the Senate that this matter be not viewed lightly. A great deal will depend on the Executive which must set machinery in motion to carry out these recommendations. But this particular matter is our own exclusive province. It is within the power of the Senate to set up such committees as it wishes to set up. I do not think that that would be done necessarily in opposition to the wishes of the Cabinet, or in an attempt to take out of the hands of the Cabinet anything that properly belonged to it, but I do suggest that this matter is peculiarly a function of the Senate itself.

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

– Yet the Senate is the legislative chamber in which the Australian Capital Territory is not represented.

Senator McCALLUM:

– That very matter was considered by the committee, but no recommendation has been made about it. Nevertheless, it may be discussed later.

Senator Vincent:

– The Australian Capital Territory is not a State.

Senator McCALLUM:

– That is so, the point is that this chamber was set up to represent the States. I myself raised the matter mentioned by the honorable senator in this committee, and the committee considered it very carefully. The general impression among the members of the committee was that no recommendation should be made because the Senate is supposed exclusively to represent the States. However, if any honorable senator who was on the committee, or, indeed, any other honorable senator, wishes to raise that matter as one to be discussed by the Senate, I shall be very happy to hear the discussion take place.

One of the most important matters considered by the committee was that of architecture. Indeed, it was out of the matter of architecture that the committee originally arose. “When this city was first conceived, the idea was that there should be notable and noble architecture developed here, but unfortunately that has not taken place, and successive people who have had to make decisions have put the matter aside and said, in effect, “ Yes, some clay, somehow, there will arise noble buildings here in Canberra, but that is for generations yet unborn “. We found that sort of attitude again and again, and whenever a concrete proposal to make a contribution to the architectural beauty of the city was put forward, it was put aside for the sake of provisional convenience.

We are at present sitting in a provisional Parliament House - why, I do not know. I believe that it was a regrettable mistake to build a provisional Parliament House, and I think that the Government which decided to come to Canberra should have erected a permanent Parliament House, and until it had done so, it should have stayed away from this place. Many difficulties may arise with regard to architecture. Some people say that buildings can be erected in sections, while others say that that method cannot be followed because one section which may bc built today will be found to be unsuitable to-morrow. I personally consider that it would have been possible to devise a Parliament House adequate to meet the needs of the moment, but nevertheless having plenty of room for expansion.

I consider that the system of erecting, temporary buildings has vitiated the whole development of this city. As I have said, we have a temporary Parliament House. We also have temporary administration buildings, and less than temporary buildings down at Barton. Those wooden buildings at Barton were put there for heaven knows what purpose. The whole of this matter of architecture goes back to the lack of watchfulness, planning and forethought on the part of the Executive, Public Service and Parliament. I believe that those buildings were put up at Barton at the special request of leading public servants. I believe that the Public Service Board itself stated that the administration could not be carried on in Canberra unless office accommodation was provided. In consequence of that belief, these buildings were put up. I ask honorable senators to consider whether, with the housing position as it is to-day in this country and with the continual demand for buildings of all sorts including houses and offices, any building that will hold together can ever be regarded as a temporary building.

I suggest that every building that is erected in this country will remain in use until it is burned down or falls down. Why, the temporary workmen’s cottages put up in the days of the old Federal Capital Commission are still in existence, and what is more they are on one of the best sites in Canberra. I strongly urge that no more temporary buildings be erected in this city and that no building at all should be erected unless it is intended to be permanent, and unless it is a building worthy of the national capital. The only temporary building that 1 can conceive of is a tent, and possibly if we did put public servants or other people who had to do a job in a huge tent, one Canberra winter would be quite sufficient to force the authorities to erect a decent building.

There are many matters to be considered in architecture, and honorable senators will find from the report that the committee has not arrogantly urged its own opinions or the opinions of the individual members of the committee. On the other hand, it has pointed out the disease that afflicts Canberra - the rash of temporary buildings, the absence of noble and worthy buildings and the need for them. Of course, that does not mean that everything can be left to the architects. Clemenceau once said that war was far too important a business to be left to generals. I fully agree with him as I am one who has suffered from generals, and I say that architecture is too important a business to be left to architects.

I know that the architect must plan a building and must give his advice about it, but we are not going to allow any architect of any school to say, “ You must accept my advice, I know and you do not “. After all, the customer is sometimes right. The consumer has a right to say that he wants something of a certain sort, even though he may not be able to make it himself. It is ridiculous to say that unless you are a creative artist, your opinion has no merit. I could not have written Shakespeare’s plays, but I can enjoy them. I could not have written the epistles of St. Paul but I can profit by them. I believe that the taste of the citizen must be taken into consideration when dealing with architecture, and the committee in its report has done everything that it can to ensure that in the future the architect will be able to produce something that we will be proud of.

We have, made two important suggestions and I would like every honorable senator to read at least that part of the report which deals with them. First, we have suggested that within the Public Service under the authority of the Commissioner, there shall be a body of experts concerned with planning - including architecture. We believe that that body will be enabled to ensure that we shall have a good standard of architecture. We found, when we examined witnesses, that in the past the architects and planners in the relevant departments had not been treated with the respect that they deserved. Their considered opinions have often been treated lightly by officials, and often we could not find out who those officials were. They were not necessarily the head of the department, or the Minister, but in some cases it appeared that the opinions of architects and planners were treated lightly by some person whom we could not locate, some person who simply had superior authority.

We suggest, very earnestly, that the status of the planners, architects and artists in the Public Service be raised so that more attention will be paid to their requests. We do not believe that a really great city can arise if the matter is left exclusively to public servants. Therefore, we have asked that the Government should set up an artistic standards committee. That is not our own brain child, because we have studied carefully the history of Washington, Ottawa and other capitals of the world, and we found that in Washington no true standards could be arrived at until various committees were set up, the most important of all being the Fine Arts Committee. We have a National Capital Planning and Development Committee. That has been ineffective, but not because it has not been composed of good men. Indeed, we have a great respect for those who have been members of that committee, and I am sorry that we had to make the necessary announcement that it should be abolished. That announcement is not intended in any way as a censure of the members of the committee.

We considered that the whole conception of that committee was faulty, that the Parliament had deliberately refused to give it the authority and weight that a body such as it should have had, and so we have suggested that another committee should be set up. We suggested a different name for the new committee because the committee under the old name had been a failure, and we wanted this one to be a success. The committee is to consist of architects, artists and other persons of taste and discernment. The choice of those members must be left with the Executive, and we would not suggest, even in a debate, the name of any particular man to serve on that committee. However, I can think of four or five men who could serve on the committee and whose advice and counsel would be of great value. When one talks of architecture to-day, he gets all kinds of criticism. One newspaper suggested that we wanted Babylonian grandeur. No more unhappy phrase could have been thought of, because the only mental impression I have of Babylon is that it was a place that one should flee from, not go to. It is certainly not Babylonian grandeur but something distinctively Australian that we want. We will never get that until we get men of imagination, skill, and competence to design and build our national capital. I do not think that this city should be a copy of great cities such as Paris, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. But there is greatness in architecture and grandeur, and the sooner our architects produce great and noble buildings, accommodated to the setting of this city, the better.

I must associate with architecture the general planning, because this is a very noble site. It was picked because it appealed to the surveyors and other people as one of the grandest sites m Australia. The buildings, trees, gardens, parks - everything - must be subordinated to the great general plan. That can only be done by getting the counsel and advice of very great artists - men with artistic temperaments. I am afraid when 1 think of some of the things I see going up in other parts of Australia of what some architects would do if we simply let them loose. They might build a great glass box on the top of Capitol Hill but T think there will be sufficient good taste to prevent that.

One of the problems - I suppose some people would say the crux of the whole problem - is that of finance. Speaking at this time when there is a desire to curb public expenditure. I will deal with that very boldly. We are not demanding: an immediate and enormous increase of public expenditure to erect here things that might conceivably be left to thefuture. We are suggesting that the policy of regarding Canberra as something that should have money spent on it only when, nobody wants to spend anywhere elseshould be abandoned. Let us face thequestion. Are we going to build a capital city, or not? Are we going to move upthe centra] administrations, or not? If the answers to these questions are in thenegative, we shall waste far more money than if they were in the affirmative. Buildings which will be useless in a fewyears’ time - buildings on which millions of pounds have been expended - are the true waste; the really solid and substantial buildings - the few which have gone up - will never be a waste. They are assets for the future. We think too violent fluctuations in the amount spent on Canberra has been one of the main causes in the deterioration of the general conception of what should be done. Witnesses told us that no sooner was a labour force collected here than there came a cut in expenditure and contractors had to let their men drift away. Ultimately, they lost their labour force entirely. Many contractors became completely discouraged, and lost all interest in the place.

Senator Henty:

– But many of them made fortunes.

Senator McCALLUM:

– Yes, I think out of the sort of building that I have already described as waste. What we want is a steady flow of expenditure. If there is to be a pro rata cut in all expenditure, I suppose it must be applied to Canberra, too, but I object to Canberra being regarded as something that does not matter, something regarding which we can drift on from day to day without any damage being caused to the public interest. As I said before the suspension of the sitting, a building here is as valuable as a building anywhere else. If we build a cottage or a block of flats here, there will be more accommodation available in Melbourne or some other place from which the public servants come.-

I invite the attention of the Senate t«> the very carefully considered suggestions we have made. We think that there should be a steady flow of public money for expenditure here just as there is a steady flow of public expenditure elsewhere. There is one other point, and this is not merely a debating point. I know it will be quite easy for a malicious critic to laugh at it, but in a man’s own private expenditure, or in the expenditure of a company to which he belongs, he does not regard it as waste if assets are being established. If he is improving his farm, or his property or his house, that is not waste. That is something different from mere enjoyment. In a sense, it is saving. There is a sense in which building in Canberra is a saving. Here we have the leasehold system. The committee did not go into the general question as to whether leasehold or freehold was the better, but wo decided emphatically that during this building stage in Canberra the leasehold form was the right one. Public expenditure, say in Collins-street, Melbourne, would enrich the proprietors of the Age newspaper, and everybody else who has a property in Collins-street. It would tend “to raise ground rents, and confer an advantage on every individual property owner. Here in Canberra, while there is some advantage to the individual property owner, the great bulk of the increase in value - the unearned increment as it is called - goes to the nation itself, so that I say that money spent on building in Canberra, particularly the building of homes on leasehold tenure, is a saving. We are building up here an enormous asset for the future of this country.

Senator Scott:

– What kind of leasehold prevails here?

Senator McCALLUM:

– The perpetual leasehold system obtains in Canberra, and there are re-appraisals at intervals of 25 years. Therefore, the Commonwealth is continually gaining. In my opinion, the occupier, also, is gaining, but nobody !s getting speculative gains in real estate in Canberra such as are being obtained in other capital cities.

Whilst we- have never advocated that Canberra should become a great industrial city, we have suggested an industry which, I think, might very well be left almost exclusively to private enterprise - possibly even the advertising side of it. I refer to the tourist trade. About 250,000 people visited this city last year, and doubtless the number will increase from year to year. Every building that the Government erects - I mean worthy buildings, not shoddy and cheap ones - will provide an additional incentive to people to come here. Why do people visit Canberra ? Because it is the national capital, but they see the National Parliament, the Australian National War Museum, the scenery, and little else. When we suggested an art gallery, that was said to be extravagance - a white elephant. I suggest to you, sir, that such expenditure is not merely for the people who live here; it is for all the citizens of the Commonwealth. If it becomes a regular part of the life of every citizen of the Commonwealth to visit this place once, as it is the practice of the people of the United States of America to visit Washington ; if it becomes a part of the policy of school authorities to send young people to the national capital, there should be more things here for them to see.

That is another reason for having an art gallery in Canberra. I have- been told, and although it is not in the evidence I believe it is true, that some time ago the Commonwealth lost a most valuable collection of private pictures because there was nowhere to house it. If there had been an art gallery here, the gentleman, who subsequently gave the pictures to some one else, would have given them to the nation. I can recall an instance in my own experience where people who had a valuable collection of pictures gave it to an institution which undertook to provide accommodation for the collection, and because there were right relations between the donor and the institution concerned. The Teachers’ College at Armidale, largely through the efforts of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Drummond), secured a very valuable collection of Australian pictures, mostly landscapes and other scenes, because the college had accommodation for the pictures and was willing to house them. To-day, that collection of pictures, donated by Howard Hinton, is of more value than the building which houses it. or, indeed, the whole property. We have to approach this matter from a more imaginative point of view. I appreciate the attitude of my friends in the Treasury who question expenditure on such things. They are justified in doing so, because if no one questions expenditure, there is a likelihood of expenditure becoming prodigal. It is foolish, however, to spoil a ship for a ha’porth of tar. True economy may mean, not the withholding of expenditure, but the spending of more money, so long as it is spent wisely and well, and in a way that will give a good return. This mean, Scroogelike attitude of many people towards Canberra has impoverished a national asset and in the long run has meant, not a saving, but a loss to the nation.

It is often said that there should be more private expenditure in this city. I believe that if the Government does its part in the development of Canberra, there are many associations which will follow its example. Washington is a magnificent city, but that is not due entirely to expenditure by the Government of the United States. Many patriotic bodies in that country have contributed noble buildings. Washington has an art gallery erected with funds contributed as private donations. I believe that General Washington’s old residence was refurnished and restored by the patriotic efforts of some association, probably the Daughters of the Revolution. Australia is a younger country than the United States is, but we are not so young after all. We are growing up, and I believe that this patriotic spirit could be fostered and directed towards the end that I have suggested. One association of which I am a member could, I’ think, very well take some part in adding to the beauty of the war memorial in Canberra. That building was erected and is maintained at public expense, but there is no reason why a patriotic association - I suggest the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia because I am a member of it - should not make a donation which would add to the beauty of the war memorial. It is already a fine building, but it could be made more beautiful within. I do not think that the only persons who should be interested in adding to the beauty of the city should be the taxpayers of Australia.

Those are the main points that I put. before the Senate. I shall recapitulatethem. First, I hope that this committeewill be the forerunner of a number of other committees. I do not want theSenate lightly to set up committees toinvestigate this, that, or the other thing. We should consider carefully beforeestablishing a committee. A few daysago I was speaking to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I said to him that New Zealand had put me, as a Senator,, in a somewhat awkward position, becausepeople were pointing out that New Zealand had abolished its upper house of parliament, and were advocating similar action in Australia. In reply, he told me that he was thinking seriously of” doing something to replace the upper house but that he did not want to reestablish the old legislative council. Hewent on to say that he did not want merely a house of review, but that hewould like to establish a body which would be’ elected by the people, and beresponsible to the people, and that it should inquire into fields of public- interest that the Cabinet had no timeto go into because it was pre-occupied’ with day to day problems.

I have suggested a number of thingsthat could be done, and I hope that thisreport will be regarded as an exampleof what can be done by other committees; of the Senate. It does not bind any one. Indeed, one critic said that there wereplenty of pigeon-holes, and that thereport would probably find a resting place in one of them. I tell the Senatethat this report will not be left in any pigeon-hole. Although it may be put in one for safe keeping, it will be taken out and dusted from time to time. I am convinced that until the 76 recommendations contained in the report are given effect, there will always be in the Senate,, and in other places, people who will” remind the Government of them. I am convinced that the Government could1 safely begin the implementation of a part of the report to-morrow.

Secondly, I repeat that the report is both a long-range and a shortrangeproject. There are some things that could be commenced immediately, whereasothers must be left to some time in thefuture. That does not mean, however,. that they should be postponed to the indefinite future. The fact that we cannot start building yet is no reason why we should not commence our planning. That remark applies to the lakes scheme. I hope that the proposal to have lakes in Canberra will be debated. We are often told to jump in the lake, but how can we do so if there is no lake. I am sure that at least a part of the original proposal of Walter Burley Griffin - the construction of the three central basins - must be carried out, and therefore I urge that plans for that work be drawn up immediately. The committee did not definitely recommend the establishment of West Lake, because it heard evidence both for and against the proposal. The committee was firm, however, in the view that the area should never be used for purposes other than the recreation of the people and the beautification of the city. It should not be allowed to get into the hands of any exclusive club, or used for purposes of gain. If the area is not to be converted into a lake, it should be developed as a park and given as much water treatment as possible. The only reason why I, at any rate, did not recommend directly that the West Lake be restored to the plan without qualification was that I thought we needed a little more evidence on the subject. We have ha,d a satisfactory report from engineers, and there are other reports. I think that we should have something to show what the proposed lake would look like, and I should like also to have reports on the nature of the soil, and on the likely growth of weeds. If the area can be established with a lake as the best treatment for the area, I shall be happy to support the proposal. Failing that, I favour the provision of a ribbon of water, with a park area near it.

I urge that the immediate task to be undertaken is to finish the administration block and to provide houses for the people who will come here. I know that the administrative building will be completed, but I urge the construction of cottages and fiats for the families of those who will occupy it. The committee recommended - and I emphatically support the recommendation - that because departmental control would not succeed in building a city, a commission on the lines it suggested should be set up. This may result in further inquiry and report, but it is a very practical proposal that would result in the saving of money, and the introduction of an element of urgency and speed and effort into the task. A Senate committee has been suggested for certain limited purposes which are laid down, but with no intention of interfering with the administration. Its purpose would be to guard the plan and see that its principles were not departed from.

We urge control of architecture, first by giving more weight to the opinions of the architects within the department, or, as we hope they will be, within the authority, and also by having an outside expert body to give final judgment on plans. We urge expenditure, not at an extravagant rate which would be detrimental to other interests of the Commonwealth, but at a steady rate so that the labour forces will never be dissipated and the progress of the city will never cease. Expenditure here under the leasehold system means the building up of assets, not the squandering of money.

I urge that the tourist trade be encouraged, and that every effort be made to foster private expenditure in Canberra. I do not mean only expenditure by businessmen who want to make money; I mean also that we should encourage the making of donations from persons who wish to do something for the ultimate good of their country. In the past, such men have been great benefactors to Australia, and have been responsible for assisting universities and for founding charitable institutions such as orphanages. The great Felton Bequest has given Melbourne the only art gallery in Australia. Almost the sole reason that 1 go to Melbourne is to visit the art gallery. Surely the same sort of thing could happen in Canberra. If the Government follows the right line, it can ensure that this city shall not remain a mere bivouac or camp which members of Parliament shuffle into and out of. I dare say that some members of Parliament know no more of Canberra than the road from the airport to the hotel where they stay and the street from the hotel to Parliament House. We must make of Canberra a great and gay city; not a solemn, sombre place, but a city that is enjoyed by the people who live here and by those who visit it.

I have tried to be as prosaic and practical as possible because I know the sort of reception the committee’s report had at first, and also the kind of criticism that awaits any one at this time who dares to suggest that the Government should spend money. I am certain, however, that the old idea that Canberra is a place to be sneered at and laughed at, is dying. The majority of Australians realize that already this is a place to be proud of, and one of which they will have in the future even greater cause to be proud. The love of the capital city of one’s country is a major ingredient in a sensible patriotism. The Englishman loves London, the Scot loves Edinburgh, the Frenchman loves Paris; whilst archaic names like Borne, Jerusalem and Athens are very magic. I hope that the time will come when every Australian will be proud of Canberra. I look forward to the day when some one, standing on the War Memorial and looking over to the mountains as the sun rises, or in the middle of the day, or as the sun goes down, will say, “ Earth has not anything to show more fair”.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– It is true that few people in the Commonwealth have any great interest in the development of Canberra. I have found that the further I go from Canberra, the less interest the people I meet have in this city. I know that they are aware of the important decisions made here, particularly in regard to taxation and other matters, but they have little interest, knowledge or pride in the national capital, and are not willing to learn anything about it.

The history of Canberra is important, and is really part of the history of the Commonwealth. An examination of the Constitution shows that before Canberra was thought of a good deal of discussion was going on between the States as to the basis on which each State would enter federation. If credit is due to any State for the establishment of Canberra, it is due to” Victoria because that State insisted on certain things being agreed to before it would enter into federation with other States. Two of the conditions were, first, that the national capital,, or the Parliament of Australia, should be at least 100 miles from Sydney and, secondly, that the State of New South Wales should grant an area of 100 square miles for the national capital. Onewonders, at this stage, why Victoria made such a bargain with .New South Wales. Probably those who spoke for Victoriaargued that in its capital city it had Carlton, Collingwood, and Fitzroy, and that those suburbs were just as good as Woolloomooloo, Redfern and Surry Hills in the capital city of New South: Wales. Therefore, there was no reason why Melbourne should not be the national capital. Of course, the National Parliament was located in Melbourne for a longwhile, and Victoria was sorry to lose itPossibly that is one reason for the preliminary delay in designing a federal capital. The matter dragged for a long time until Mr. King O’Malley waa appointed to a responsible position in the Commonwealth Parliament, and was given authority to call applications for a plan for Canberra.

The history of what followed isinteresting. After he had called applications throughout the world, it was found that he was to be one of tie judges and would have the final say as to the designwhich would be ultimately accepted. Tho town-planners and architects of the day threatened to boycott the proposal, but in spite of that 137 designs were received. After an exhaustive examination three were chosen, and of these Mr. King O’Malley, the founder of the Commonwealth Bank, decided that the plan submitted by Burley Griffin should be adopted.

I was a member of the Senate committee that considered the development of Canberra. I heard the evidence, audit appears that ever since the Griffin plan was adopted a prejudice against Canberra developed because nf the way in which the competition was conducted1 and the final choice made. That,, briefly, is the history of the plan of Canberra.

I have found, according to the evidence of experts, architects and competent townplanners, that there is nothing whatever wrong with the Canberra plan.

Apparently, it is quite all right and quite satisfactory, although it may require some modification in order to meet modern demands. However, apart from such slight modification as might be necessary, the plan seems to be suitable for presenday requirements. It is rather interesting to note that today, the very day on which we are discussing the development of Canberra, a helicopter was flying over Parliament House and landing on the lawns outside this establishment. As I stand here tonight, I wonder whether Burley Griffin, who designed the city of Canberra, had any idea, at the time he did his designing, that such an incident would occur in 1956. We know that great progress has been made in various fields since 1911, and I am sure that we shall continue to progress.

When Canberra was designed, the plan was devised to meet the requirements of the day. There was not then the heavy motor traffic that there is today. It is conceivable that the designers of that period had no conception of what the traffic would be like in 1950 and 1956. Therefore, we find here in Canberra roads up to 200 feet in width. It was not conceived then either, that the roads would be macadamized for motor traffic. No doubt it was thought that the roads would have gravel surfaces, as they had 50, 60 and 70 years ago.

I come now to discuss the features that exist in Canberra today, and the manner in which development has occurred. First, I refer to Parliament House. We find that it is now too small for our requirements and that the office accommodation for members of the Parliament is restricted. The accommodation for the public servants who normally carry out their duties in Parliament House is so circumscribed that more accommodation is demanded. I invite the attention of honorable senators ‘to the magnificent office building that is in the course of construction between Parliament House and the Hotel Kurrajong. Whenever I pass by that building and stand and view it from different angles, I am invariably greatly impressed with its magnificence. Nevertheless, I have found, when speaking to architects and town planners, that they are not in accord with my views.

They say that it is out-of-date, that it is already old fashioned, and that it could be re-designed to great advantage. I do not share that view, perhaps because 1 am a simple-minded individual. I think it is a grand building and I look forward to its official opening in the near future.

It is necessary to provide office accommodation for the public servants of the Commonwealth who will be required to carry out their duties here at some later date. If those offices are to be occupied within the next four or five years, there will have to be a great impetus in the building rate of residences in which to house them in Canberra. I understand that the administrative building which is in course of construction at the present time will be capable of accommodating between 3,000 and 4,000 officers. If that is so, it is comparatively easy to calculate the number of residences that will be required in Canberra to house the officers, because many of the public servants who will work in that building will be married men and will require homes.

The residences and, generally speaking, the office accommodation provided in Canberra is, in my opinion, satisfactory. For the most part, the buildings are well constructed, and the offices are well lit and well ventilated. I do not think any strong objection could be raised to the construction of the office buildings. As one drives round the city, one must admit that the residences are attractive. There is variety, and they are substantially built in the majority of cases. They are constructed of timber, brick, concrete and other materials, and they embody some of the latest ideas. Generally speaking, the housing accommodation in Canberra at the present time must be classed as good, compared with the houses that exist in other cities.

I have been told by experts that the business premises here are old-fashioned and not suitable for a national capital. It has been said that a capital such as Canberra should have grandeur, and that the buildings should have been designed on a different scale altogether. Provided that the buildings give service which satisfies the public, I believe there is nothing wrong with them at all. In my opinion, those buildings- are giving adequate service at the present time. Already it is possible to’ notice that the business premises in Canberra are being expanded. New buildings are being constructed at Civic Centre and elsewhere, and I have no doubt that new buildings will continue in the future.

Frequently, when we were dealing with matters related to the development of Canberra, we heard a complaint or two about the organization of the governmental authorities whose responsibility it was to carry out various works in Canberra. Our investigations showed that each government department had a good organization and efficient officers who were quite capable of carrying out their duties and of doing all the work that was required of them. The Canberra Community Hospital, which is an attractive building, is a serviceable institution, but I understand that, should it be necessary to construct another hospital here at any time, it will not be erected in an open area such as that occupied by the present hospital.

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

– Why not?

Senator BENN:

– I understand that, because of the threat of nuclear warfare, the hospital would have to be placed within the shadow of a hill, and away from the centre of affairs, such as the main parts of the city. That is the latest idea of the experts in nuclear warfare.

The Australian National University buildings may be seen by all who visit Canberra. I think that the university speaks for itself, particularly the figure at the door. In my opinion, the schools here compare with those of any city of Australia, certainly with any I have seen in the States. I refer, of course, to the primary schools. The architectural features of the churches in Canberra may not be as grand as those in other cities, but, nevertheless, the churches are not bad. At the present time, Canberra has a fair share of public amenities. There is a new swimming pool which has been built, I understand, to olympic standards, and in my opinion it compares with any swimming pool in the Commonwealth. Perhaps it could be improved by having heated water in the winter months. Indeed, I think that that would be necessary in order to have it patronized throughout the year. I suggest that those honorable senators who have not already seen the swimming pool should have a look at it to-morrow morning. It is well worth a visit.

There are adequate picnic grounds in Canberra, successive previous governments having seen to it that the people were well provided with this amenity, probably because picnic grounds can be provided cheaply. In addition, there is a racecourse right in the centre of the city, between Civic Centre and Kingston. I have not seen any swabbing stalls there, so I must assume that racing is carried on there at a high level. There are also football fields, tennis courts, cricket pitches, golf courses and the other amenities that one would expect to find in any city. The standard of those amenities compares favorably with similar amenities in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

There is a shortage of dance halls in Canberra, and I believe that the Government should do something to provide a suitable dance hall as there are so many young persons living here. I do not say that the Government should construct a building and declare that that is to be a dance hall. I suggest the construction of a hall which could be used for conferences and as a dance hall as well. That is essential in a city the size of Canberra with an increasing population and a large proportion of young people.

It is interesting to note what has been spent by Commonwealth governments in developing Canberra. This is a national city. It is owned by the Commonwealth, and it is a government city. It has no city council. It is not controlled by a local authority. Everything that has been done for the people is the work of the Government. The estimate for expenditure on Canberra for the current financial year is £5,409,000. I am unable to say now whether that amount will be spent in developing Canberra, but I am inclined to believe that it will not be expended because, in the previous financial year, the Estimates provided for an expenditure of £4,300,000 and only £3,340,000 was spent, although there was room for much more work, particularly in the provision of housing. Because of the sprawling layout of Canberra, which is called a garden city, certain services are costly. Some do not exist, and never will be installed. For example, gas would be a very costly service to provide in Canberra. The water supply must be a costly service.

We do not find many people away from Canberra and in other parts of Australia who have any national sentiment about their national capital. One never hears them speaking with pride of Canberra. Sometimes a person who has been to Canberra, and has seen the war memorial and the Cotter dam, will mention those things, but they would do the same if they had inspected the Snowy River project and seen the work that is being done there. They appear to lack any great interest in Canberra. The reason is that governments over the years have never shown any great interest in Canberra themselves. They have not sought to develop it on proper lines.

This is the Commonwealth Parliament, and Canberra is the national capital, and one would expect that the instruments of authority would be located here, but the Commonwealth Government is not inclined to consider favorably any suggestion that certain courts, for example, should function in Canberra. I believe this is the place where the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration should function. It would not be any more costly to the litigants or to the Australian Government if it did. The High Court of Australia should have its headquarters in Canberra, and so also “should the Commonwealth Bank. As many instruments of authority as possible should be centred in the national capital, but over the years successive governments have failed to bring them here. The Australian Wheat Board should be domiciled in Canberra permanently. Every office that is Commonwealth in character should be here.

Honorable senators might observe that the committee has recommended that housing accommodation should be provided for Ministers of the Crown, and that they should reside in Canberra. The committee made that suggestion with the object of increasing the importance of Canberra. The committee believes that if the people of Australia knew that all

Ministers .of the Crown were living in Canberra, they would have a higher regard for the national capital. Some persons who have travelled abroad, and have seen Washington and Ottawa, have made comparisons between our humble city and those great cities. Various changes in our economy have occurred since an attempt was made to establish Canberra. When an honest attempt was made many years ago to develop Canberra, there was a depression. Later, when another honest endeavour was made, a war broke out. Now, just as we are again preparing to develop it, we are threatened with some sort of depressed prosperity, and again there will be a halt.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the recommendations of the committee. I do not propose to go over all of them, but some are particularly important. One of the recommendations is -

That the enormous waste of public moneys and lack of departmental efficiency occasioned by the carrying on of administration in the three cities of Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney, be not allowed to continue indefinitely;

That the plan known as “ Operation Admin.” be accepted as a firm obligation on the part, of the Government, and steps taken to ensure its completion by 19C5.

In explanation of that recommendation, I remind honorable senators that there is a scheme - it has not been gazetted and is not in the form of a law, so far - to bring certain governmental departments to Canberra, lt is proposed to provide houses and office accommodation for all the officers engaged in those departments. Notwithstanding the good intentions of that section of the Public Service which is responsible for transferring departments and public servants from other States to Canberra, all sorts of difficulties arise when they attempt to do something in that direction. When they reach a stage where office accommodation has been provided, there is a lack of housing accommodation. They seem to be unable to balance the supply of housing accommodation and office accommodation.

Obviously, there would be a great improvement in the administration of various Commonwealth departments if the responsible Ministers attended at the head offices of the departments in Canberra where they could give instructions to the permanent heads, be in a position to ensure that their directions were carried out, and then visit the States to see whether the directions had been given effect. In the interests of the efficiency of the Commonwealth Public Service generally, the recommendation of the committee should be adopted.

I do not want to repeat all the observations that have been made by Senator McCallum, but I direct attention to the proposal to construct a now Parliament House. Everybody knows that this is a temporary Parliament House, although it is a permanent building, and undoubtedly will be here for another century. When we started to investigate this matter, we found that Parliament House should have been built about 200 yards behind the present site. We recommended that a new Parliament House be constructed on Capitol Hill. Some of us made that recommendation with a certain amount of fear because honorable senators know, as well as I do, that it is the policy of the Australian Labour party to abolish the Senate. Some of us thought that a new Parliament House might be constructed with one chamber only, and honorable senators would find, when they were about to move into the new building, that there was accommodation for the members of the House of Representatives only and they would be left without a chamber at all. So, we were not very happy in submitting that recommendation, but in the interests of Australia and of Canberra the recommendation was made.

Another important recommendation arose from the fact that Canberra has only one adequate public hall, the Albert Hall. The committee recommended the provision of a community hall containing a dance hall and at least four conference chambers. That is a very important recommendation for the reason that although this is the national capital, national organizations throughout Australia find, when they wish to hold their annual meetings at Canberra, that they cannot obtain office accommodation here. National organizations are increasing in number with the growth of our population, which is now approximately 9,000,000. The population will increase still further and the number of national organizations will continue to increase. When they wish to come to the capital of the Commonwealth they cannot do so because of the shortage of office accommodation. That is something which should bo remedied immediately. Those responsible are not members of a local authority but the members of the Government. It is, therefore, our responsibility to provide the accommodation required.

Another important recommendation is that immediate consideration be given to the provision of sites for more hotels. The committee was of the opinion that Canberra needs at least four more hotels immediately to cater not only for the citizens of Canberra but also for the increasing number of visitors to the city. The reason for that recommendation is self-evident. We are all aware that within four or five years the development of the Snowy Mountains scheme will have reached a stage when tourists will be attracted to it from all parts of Australia. People will come not only from within Australia but also from other countries such as New Zealand to look over the Snowy Mountains scheme. At the same time they will want to have a look at our national capital. If this flow of tourists were to begin immediately, or even within the next year or two, Canberra would be in the position of being unable to provide accommodation for them. I noticed recently that one enterprising company had indicated its intention to construct a hotel in a certain area of Canberra to be known as a motel.- If it proceeds with the construction of that building it will be, in due course, rewarded for its efforts.

Another contentious recommendation was -

That an examination of the lakes scheme be proceeded with immediately; and that the final decision be implemented as soon as possible; but that the provision of the three centre basins he regarded as obligatory.

It is worthy of note that the plan submitted by Mr. Burley Griffin was accepted mainly because of the provision he made in it for artificial lakes. He exploited the contours and physical features of the land and suggested that lakes could be constructed economically. It was because of that feature of his plan that he won the prize. Yet, we find that over the years not one firm attempt has been made to provide a basin, let along a lake. If the beauty of Canberra can be enhanced by establishing these lakes their construction should be commenced at an early date.

Many other recommendations are included in the report but as other senators who were members of the committee will deal with them I do not propose to say much more. The department responsible for the development of Canberra has the technical staff, knowledge and the organizing ability to carry out the work that is necessary. As workmenbecome available I feel the department should show that it is the sincere intention of the Australian Government to develop Canberra as it should be developed. Nothing should prevent that developmental work being carried out.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- Asa member of the select committee I brought in a separate report because I was not in favour of some of the recommendations that were made in the majority report. I set out my views in a dissenting report, and I think it is advisable that I detail some of the points in my dissenting report and impress upon the Senate why I feel the recommendations of the other members of the committee are not in line with what I think should be approved by this chamber.

Honorable senators will notice that I have summarized some of the recommendations of the majority of the committee with which I disagree. They are -

  1. That a Minister should be appointed specially for the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. That a Commissioner for Canberra be appointed.
  3. That six permanent Directors of Town Planning, Surveying, Landscaping, Architecture, Building Engineering, Roads and Services Construction Engineering be appointed. 4.. A Legislative Council for Canberra.
  4. As future development of Canberra warrants - the establishment of - .

    1. A municipality for the City of Canberra,
    2. A shire council for the balance of the Australian Capital Territory.

Inmy opinion those recommendations are far too comprehensive for an area of the size of the Australian Capital Territory. We must keep in mind the fact that the administration of Canberra should be the equivalent of any other city of comparable size. At the present time the population of Canberra is approximately 30,000. It is not a very large city. We should not even think of setting up such an organization which, in my opinion, would make the administration of the city top-heavy, costly and burdensome.

Let us consider how an average-sized city is run. It has a city council elected by the people. Engineering needs are supervised by a city engineer with various assistant engineers. The town clerk is the chief administrator and is considered to be the chief executive officer. There are also men in charge of other departments. In the engineering section, there would be a separate sewerage department, and other interests are departmentalized within the structure of the city council. To suggest this elaborate set-up for Canberra is to go far beyond the administrative processes that exist in our major capital cities to-day. We could not conceive of any municipality of the size of Canberra having anything like the administrative system proposed for this city. In saying that, I keep in mind some of our Queensland cities - my own city of Mackay in particular with half the population of Canberra, and perhaps Rockhampton. The simplicity of the administration in those cities is amazing compared with the administration of Canberra.

I believe that the best system that we can get is the simplest system. The proposed set-up would be far too extravagant, and altogether extraordinary, for a city of the size of Canberra. Even if Canberra grew to the. size of Brisbane or Adelaide, the proposed system would still be far too comprehensive. I suggest that, bearing in mind the amount of administration and guidance givenby municipal councils in regard to policy, the proposition before us should not be accepted. Many people who attain municipal office as a councillor or mayor, go into the council chambers and delve through a lot of detailed administrative matter; but the experienced man knows that administration is for the executive officers and their assistants, and that a wise council concerns itself only with policy.

In my own city, which is recognized as one of the most progressive in Queensland, I, as mayor, visited the town hall once or twice a week. I found that that was all that was necessary on my part, and that the council officers carried out all the details of administration. Of course, the procedure is somewhat different in the bigger Australian cities, but no civic administration in this country would require such a large organization as that proposed by this committee for Canberra.

Although this is the capital city of the Commonwealth, we must keep our feet on the ground and try to be practical about the whole matter. As I understand the estimates of the final population of Canberra, we shall never need the administrative procedures outlined in this report. I again say that the simpler an administration is, the better it can work and the quicker will be its decisions.

It has been suggested that the Australian Capital Territory could be divided into a municipality and a shire. I cannot see any good reason for such a division. It would make more work for the Administration and create more difficulties. The proposal would also involve a re-arrangement of the financing of the building work to be undertaken in Canberra.

I believe in local government, and I would like to see some form of local government in this city, if possible, but to me there are some things about the; development of Canberra which are not easy to deal with from a civic administration viewpoint. Here we are required to contemplate a much grander scale of development than that in any other city, and I am sure that no municipality could afford to carry out the works that will have to be carried out here unless it were heavily subsidized by the Government. The allocation of financial responsibility between the Government and the ratepayers would be a matter of continual bargaining and arguing along the lines of the arguments between the States and the Commonwealth in the Australian Loan Council. It would be a very wise person who could decide to the satisfaction of all what should be contributed by the people of Canberra and what should be contributed by the Government.

I would like to see some form of municipal government in Canberra, because it would encourage a community spirit and more self-help among the residents than, possibly, exists at present. While we may not like the present method under which the Government provides what it considers to be necessary for Canberra, in the long run I believe that it is the better system. Sometimes we have to compromise about such things, and therefore I believe that the present method adopted to build Canberra is the better method in view of the fact that this city is the national capital.

It is possible that the purpose of this committee has been lost sight of in its deliberations. I believe that the report it has presented is too large and too detailed. Perhaps that indicates that the purpose and ideas behind the appointment of the committee have been overlooked. A simple report might have had much more effect on the minds of honorable senators and of the public generally. We require primarily in Canberra a good town plan. At present we have a town plan drawn up by Burley Griffin, which has been a matter of controversy for certain reasons. Some people express the view that the plan should not be touched in any particular, but should be carried out completely. Those of us who have been associated with town planning over a period of years have noticed how almost inevitably changes take place in town plans. Town planning has not been practised for very long, and consequently it is developing its ideas and outlook. It is continually changing because our mode of living is changing. When I contrast the first town plan that I was associated with in my own city about 20 years ago, with the town plans that I see at present, I notice the great development that has take place in town planning.

Provision is now made in town plans for things that were not thought of years ago. When Burley Griffin drew up the plan of Canberra, he could not conceive some of the factors that now exist. His plan was drawn in the horse-and-buggy days. Since then, with the advent of motor vehicles and aircraft, great changes have taken place in methods of transportation. In view of these great changes, and consequent changes in our mode of living, it is foolish for any one to contend that the Burley Griffin plan should be rigidly adhered to, in perpetuity. It is obvious that the plan should be altered in some respects. I do not think the .roads system, of Canberra is adequate for the fast-moving motor traffic of to-day. It is certainly not the ideal system for the development of Canberra. We should be receptive to new ideas if we really want to do the best possible for the national capital. We should strive to remedy any mistakes that have been made in the past.

There is a vast area of land in the centre of Canberra that has not been built on - a large triangular vacuum as it were. Long before 1 came to Canberra, I” heard people express the opinion that, in the interests of the national capital, that land should be built on. But, as one who has been interested in town planning for a long time, I cannot envisage the centre of this city being completely built over.

Senator Kendall:

– Nobody wants that to happen.

Senator WOOD:

– I agree with my friend from Queensland, that nobody wants that area to be completely built over. We must have trees, and pay attention to beautification. On the other hand, the distance between public buildings should not be so great that peoples’ tongues almost trail on the ground when they are walking from one to the other. We must not be unmindful of the fact that the community is not composed entirely of fast walkers. The aspect of the matter to which I am addressing my remarks is a serious one, because even after all of the central administrations have been transferred to Canberra, and housed in buildings to be erected, there will remain large areas of vacant land within the government triangle. In town planning, we should strive to effect a satisfactory compromise between aesthetic and economic considerations. Between the principal shopping areas at Civic Centre, Kingston, and Manuka there is a long stretch of thinly populated country, and it is necessary for shoppers to travel by bus from one centre to another. The placing of residential suburbs at considerable distances from the shopping centres makes it difficult to maintain cohesion in the overall plan, and bus services cannot be operated economically. That increases the cost of living in Canberra. I cannot see any advantage in pushing people miles out to live and retaining a vacuum in the centre of the national capital. Why should not the people be able to live closer to the centre of the city ?

Senator McCALLUM:

– What about the lakes scheme?

Senator WOOD:

– The report says that the government triangle must not betouched. Under the present plan, residences may not be built closer to the centre of the city than the existing residences. I cannot see why the people should be compelled to travel long distances to and from their work. According to the evidence given before the committee, we have reserved a greater area of land in the centre of the national capital than has been reserved all told in the cities of Washington, New Delhi and Paris. The populations of the United States of America, France and India total something like S00,000,000 people. Admittedly, the people in certain parts of those countries do not enjoy a standard of living as high as ours. Even allowing for future expansion, does any honorable senator seriously suggest that we need to reserve so much land in Canberra?

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, why not ?

Senator WOOD:

– I have been trying to point out-

Senator Courtice:

– The honorable senator has not, apparently, convinced his colleagues on the Government side.

Senator WOOD:

– I have had considerable experience of town planning, which 1 have studied for many years. I have considered the matter before the Senate, not only from the aesthetic point of view, but also from the point of view of economy. In the national capital - or any other city for that matter - there is a limit of practicable economic expansion. The point I am trying to make is that no good purpose is served by making it costly for people in Canberra to travel to and from their work, when they could live closer to the centre of the city. At present, I’ think that Canberra could be aptly described - in view of the vacuum in the ecn ti e - as a city of limbs without a body. The residents have been pushed out for miles in all directions, although there is plenty of vacant land close to the centre of the city upon which homes could be built. As I have pointed out, we have reserved in the centre as much land as has been reserved in Washington, Paris and New Delhi combined. As any one who has visited those cities knows, they have spacious parks and gardens, wide avenues, and public buildings set well back. Yet, in Australia, we want to reserve in the central sector of our national capital as much land as has been reserved in those three capitals combined. Of course, we could put the buildings 10 miles apart, and that would maintain a truly rural atmosphere. It is sometimes advisable to express oneself in extreme terms in order to develop a logical argument. Once a city goes out beyond a certain distance it goes too far. I believe that the present design for Canberra provides for buildings being too far apart. When I express these sentiments, ] speak not only in the interests of the people of Canberra; I have in mind that this is Australia’s national capital.

The chairman of the committee has spoken of the provision of an art gallery as an added attraction for tourists. An art gallery would be visited by many people besides those living in the national capital. It may be easy for senators and members of this Parliament to find their way about Canberra, but the average person who comes here on a visit finds difficulty in doing so. Even when all the buildings contemplated have been erected, that difficulty would still remain, because of the vast expanse of open country in the centre of the city and the circular lay-out of the roads. If we want to do a good job for the national capital, we should be prepared, to have the plan on which the authorities are working examined and overhauled to bring it into line with modern town-planning thought. A person who proposes to build a. home, furnish a home, or buy a motor car, naturally wants to get the best and most modern product that he can. Why should not that be the position also in the building of a city? We should be keen to obtain the best and most modern city possible, and, therefore, I repeat that, the time is due for the plan to be overhauled by a top-line town planner.

Senator McCallum:

– The weight of evidence was against that.

Senator WOOD:

– In dealing with the evidence presented to the committee, we must sift the grain from the chaff. 1 have tried to do that. T have some knowledge of town planning, and I know of men with sound ideas on the subject. 1 believe that I know those whose evidence would be of the greatest value. If the Government were to do the job properly, and had the plan of Canberra brought into line with modern town-planning ideas, I believe that the people of this country would be grateful, because it would mean that they would be provided with a national capital constructed along the best lines. It staggers me to think that there is any opposition to the idea of modernizing Canberra, and bringing a recognized authority on town planning to help us.

Senator Anderson:

– The experience of the Cumberland County Council should make us careful of town planners.

Senator WOOD:

– That remark applies also to the first planner of Canberra. I am not afraid of engaging the services of a good town planner. A person who wants a house built, consults an architect; if he wants an engineering job performed, he goes to an engineer. Why should we not consult a town planner when designing a city? All over the world there is a forward movement in connexion with city planning, and town planners are brought into consultation more and more. If some of our Australian cities had been properly planned many years ago, the people of this country would have been saved a great expense. I have in mind the City of Sydney as an example. One has only to drive along the streets of Sydney, and some of its suburbs, to realize how much time is lost because of transport bottlenecks, which cause traffic hold-ups, and a waste of petrol.

Senator Anderson:

– Just now the honorable Senator said that the design of Canberra was too spacious. Now he talks of bottlenecks.

Senator WOOD:

– When I spoke of there being too much space, I was not referring to roads. As I have said transport costs in Sydney are increased by hundreds of thousands of pounds a year because of traffic hold-ups due to badly designed roads. I believe that we, as senators, should be big enough to realize the opportunity we have to re-design this city on a better basis. Only one witness who appeared before the committee agreed with me that too much land had been reserved in the governmental triangle to meet the needs of the departments still to be brought to Canberra, and so we get back to a compromise between the practical aspects of building and maintaining a city and the beautification aspects of a national capital. I have tried to put before the Senate what I regard as some sensible views on town planning this national capital. I have endeavoured to place before honorable senators the results of my experience, and my assessment of the evidence placed before the committee. I know that the committee suggested that any alterations of the plan should be made only by a panel of town planners.

Senator McCallum:

– That is the committee’s view.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator has his own pet town planner in mind.

Senator WOOD:

– I resent Senator Vincent’s injerjection. The honorable senator was not present on the occasion when the witness to whom he refers gave evidence. In any case, that gentleman was not the only town planner to give his views. A well known town planner from Sydney expressed similar views. If we appointed a commission of town planners we would get a report which would be a compromise. If a top-line man were appointed he would probably produce a complete report in a fraction of the time that a commission would take to do it. Experience in Australia and elsewhere has been that one man can produce a plan much more quickly than a body of town planners.

Senator Wright:

– Without unity of purpose.

Senator WOOD:

Senator Wright has hit the nail on the head. When the

Senate committee was hearing evidence the Australian Planning Institute sent two witnesses to represent its views, but they differed and had an argument about certain aspects of town planning.

Senator Henty:

– The Senate committee itself does not seem to be united.

Senator WOOD:

– The difference of opinion between those two witnesses was a striking illustration .of what could happen with a body of town planners. Senator Vincent referred to the evidence of a town planner, and I recall that when he was asked how long it would take him to replan Canberra, he replied, “ Six months “. He added that the town plan of Washington, which was referred to so much in the evidence before the committee, was designed in six months.

Senator Vincent:

– We do not want to redesign Canberra ; we have plans already.

Senator WOOD:

Senator Vincent has supported the suggestion of a commission of town planners to consider a redesign of the plan; in my opinion one planner would be sufficient.

Senator McCallum:

– The commission would consider redesigning the town plan if the occasion arose.

Senator WOOD:

– Previously, it was suggested that a commission of town planners should be appointed, and I contended that only one planner was necessary. Now my friends appear to have a wider idea - that the existing plan should be redesigned but that it should be touched only when the occasion arises. For any one to suggest that the plan of Canberra is now perfect, staggers me. It is impossible to have a perfect town plan. A very simple recommendation is required - that this city plan be revised. Any municipality that is alive to the requirements of its people will always have in mind that its town planning needs continual revision.

Senator Vincent:

– That is happening in Canberra every day. Obviously, the honorable senator did not hear all the evidence.

Senator WOOD:

– I may be speaking in terms that -some honorable senators do not understand, but when the revision of a town plan is suggested that does not mean dealing wth minor details to meet day-to-day requirements. I am speaking about an overall revision. I agree with Senator Henty that sometimes a fact has to be reiterated before some people are impressed with is. A town plan which was accepted many years ago may be entirely unsuitable now. In recent years, particularly, many changes have taken place in transportation and other aspects of living. The plan of Canberra could well be revised by a leading expert.

I am diametrically opposed to the elaborate administrative set-up proposed in the plan. Simplicity of administration is required. Canberra now has a population of approximately 30,000 and it should be simple to establish an administration, at very little cost, on a basis similar to that of any municipality.

I wish to emphasize once more the points I made in my dissenting report. The first was to revise the town planning. If a single town-planner is appointed he could revise the plan from time to time, and an outside advisory body could also be called upon for help. When the townplanner passed on, the outside advisory body consisting, perhaps, of an engineer, an architect and a town-planner, could supervise any alterations required. The hands of the department for town planning could be strengthened so that the responsible officer would have the authority to resist attempts by other departments to override his plans. As in the case of other municipalities that have a local town-planning committee, Canberra should have some representative to voice the views of the people in townplanning matters, and through that channel have the needs of their daily lives, as affected by town planning, communicated to the Minister.

Town planning is obviously a subject which must be considered in great detail. A local committee could deal with local or domestic problems, whereas an outside town-planning or advisory body could deal with the broad principles of planning, not only as they affect the residents of Canberra, but also as they affect the national capital. I cannot see the need for an elaborate administrative organization. An officer of the Department of the Interior - either the head of the department or a senior officer close to him - with a fair amount of authority could deal with Canberra affairs, apart from the activities of the general townplanning body. He would be a valuable liaison between the people and the Government, and could achieve rapid results where necessary. Most of these details have been set out in my dissenting report.

The chairman of the committee made certain observations about the rate of growth and development of Canberra. In my report I have said that the rate of growth should not be accelerated to the detriment of the rest of the Commonwealth. I have in mind the shortage of loan funds. All over the Commonwealth in cities, towns and villages residents cannot obtain the means to maintain municipal standards considerably below those of Canberra. I do not believe that there is any great urgency to develop this capital city, if it means that others are to go short, possibly because of the great amount of capital being invested in. Canberra. I believe there should be sustained development, but that such development should be at a reasonable rate. I feel that as time goes on, buildings erected somewhat hastily now may be regretted, and that in 20 years’ or 30 years’ time perhaps people will say, “ If we had only known what we know now, the national capital could have been built in a better way”. Recently, I spoke to a person who had not long since, visited Washington, and he told me that the people of Washington were saying that if only the planners of Washington had waited, the buildings might have been better, and so on.

The rate of growth of Canberra should be such that construction may be accomplished without inconvenience to the rest of the country. It is desirable to make sure that whatever we do here will be clone on the best possible basis. I know that some people who live in this area have an earnest desire to see Canberra go ahead, but, on the other hand, there are those who have business interests and are activated by motives of personal gain. We must not be stampeded by such people. We should allow Canberra to grow at a rate which is natural for the proper development of the city.

I say, as one who . is keen to see the national capital built on the very best lines, and with all the earnestness that I can command, that we should not always tie ourselves to a plan and feel that it is untouchable. We should be big enough, and also progressive enough, to appreciate that better things can be designed for this area. If the successive governments are sufficiently strong, ultimately this city will find a place in the hearts and minds of the people of the Commonwealth as well as in those of the people who live here, and will fill its true destiny as a great national capital. I hope that its administration will not be overburdened, and that Canberra will not be cluttered up with many thousands of public servants who are here purely for administrative purposes. Let us have simplicity of administration. Let us keep control in the hands of as few efficient officers and employees as possible. Let us think of Canberra as something like one of our State capital cities, with the necessary embellishments which a national capital should have.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– In discussing this report, I think we should first commend those members of the Senate who undertook the work of preparing it. We should be grateful to them for the immense amount of work they have done. It is a most comprehensive report and one which covers a great many aspects of Canberra. I have no doubt that its compilation took a great deal of time. However, I think that the honorable senators fell into a trap, and I say so at the outset. In my opinion, they fell into a trap in trying to look too far into the future, a fundamental mistake of town-planners. As any town-planning hook, or any literature on the development of cities will show, a cardinal rule is not to look too far into the future. I think that, because the members of this committee fell into that trap, they have recommended this top-heavy form of administration and have, unfortunately, as a consequence, brought some ridicule upon the whole report. That is to he regretted. I think we should look at the matter with the knowledge that it was because the committee was looking too far into the future it has recommended what appears to be, at the present moment, an administrative set-up which would he far too top-heavy for the foreseeable future, or for the period to which the committee properly should have looked ahead.

Having said that, I do not want to discourage the chairman of the committee, Senator McCallum, who stated that this report probably would be put into a pigeonhole and brought out and dusted regularly. I wish to refer him to a very comprehensive report which was made by the best local government authority in Australia. I refer to Mr. Cole, the town’ clerk of Hobart. I point out to honorable senators that I do not come from Hobart, and that Mr. Cole is a Victorian. However, he is looked upon throughout Australia as one of the brightest of the younger brigade in local government. Such is his reputation that, in 1949, the Australian Government brought him to Canberra and asked him to report on the administrative set-up in this city. As a result, he made a report which was both direct and sensible.

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

– Was that report before the Senate Canberra committee?

Senator HENTY:

– I think it must have been, but if it was, the committee apparently did not take much notice of it.

Senator Vincent:

– Oh yes, we did.

Senator HENTY:

– I do not think the committee did.

Senator Vincent:

– We did not accept it.

Senator HENTY:

– I know that. The committee did not accept it, but I do, because I think it is a very good report and one which recommends a proper administrative arrangement for this city.

So far, we have had only the members of the Senate Canberra committee speaking in this debate. I was not a member of that committee, and I propose to criticize the report at some length. I feel that the members of the committee have been trying to justify themselves and their report. I have sat here and listened to a great deal of repetition of what we have been reading for the last three months, and I think it is time that somebody who was not a member of the committee, but who has had a great deal of experience of town planning and local government, such as I have had myself, got io work and tried to present a common-sense aspect of this matter.

Senator Hannaford:

– Would not the honorable senator try to justify a report if he were to make one?

Senator HENTY:

– No. If I made a report, I should believe in it and would not try to justify it. If I signed it, I would believe that it was right.

The questions that were put by the Government to Mr. Cole, when he came to Canberra were -

  1. Is any change desirable in the present form of civic management at Canberra - (a) now; or (b) in the future?

C2) If so, how should such management be constituted ‘!

Mr. Cole, with his very practical mind, did not waste time. On the next page, he gave the following answers : -

Having informed myself of the position as it exists in this Capital City and with a knowledge of the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens of Australia and also of the more advanced nations in the world, I have no hesitation in answering the questions put to me by saying that, in my opinion,

A charge in the civic management of Canberra is desirable.

To which I say, “Hear, hear!” The answers went on - (ft) The management should be by an elected municipal council.

Again, with which I agree. He continued -

  1. The change should be made as soon as possible-

And this is where I do not want to disappoint Senator McCallum - so that the first civic elections can be .held in February, 1950.

That report, which is a most comprehensive one, has been in the pigeonholes ever since. I think that that is one of the first things to which I should invite the attention of Senator McCallum, the chairman of the committee. He recommended for Canberra - a small city of 30,000 people, and not the great colossus some would have us think - the type of city management which operates throughout Australia.

It is high time we abolished the present stupid system under which, if there is a hole in the street or a blocked drain, the matter is referred to the Commonwealth Minister for Works or his department. That is what happens if a drain has to be cleared at Manuka. It is ridiculous to tie down the Commonwealth Department of Works with such city administration. Why should there not be a municipal council for Canberra? The report to which I am referring is a very practical and sound document, and I am sorry that it has been disregarded for so long. On the question of boundaries, Mr. Cole disagreed with Senator Wood because he said -

In considering the area which might be granted local government, I found there was no strong community interest between the rural population and the people living in the suburban section of the city. In the 42 square miles denned as the city area, there are approximately 17,250 persons; in the surrounding pastoral districts (858 square miles) including several villages, there are only 1,400 and at Jervis Bay, 170 miles away, 300.

Mr. Cole went on to approve of a council for the City of Canberra and a shire council to administer the municipal areas.

Senator Vincent:

– That is exactly what the Senate committee suggested. What are you getting excited about?

Senator HENTY:

- Senator Vincent was a member of this committee and is a bit touchy about it, but there is no need for that. I will touch him along a bit more about it. Just imagine the set-up that the Senate committee has suggested ! It wants a Minister, a commission and a legislative council with six directors. It would be so top heavy that it would sink into the lakes if we ever have them. The suggestion is completely stupid. The report by Mr. Cole contained this reference to a suggested legislative council -

In its report for the year 1045-40, the Advisory Council expressed, the hope that before the expiration of its term of office in September, 1947, provision would be made to give wider powers to a legislative body to be set up for the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr. Cole cited the town of Yallourn, which has a town advisory council. He referred to several other similar administrations, and then stated -

If a city council can be established on the lines recommended in this report, it will be a responsible body, a legislative body and the mouthpiece of the citizens’ of Canberra. Admittedly it will make no laws on the federal level and very few on the State level, but it could accept heavy responsibilities and should hold a very high status in the community. It was indicated to me that, unless there was an intermediate body between the city council and the government, there was no opportunity fur citizen participation in the making of what are normally State laws which, in the Capital Territory, are made by the Minister.

He opposed the setting up of a legislative council.

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

– What does he suggest as an alternative?

Senator HENTY:

– To set up a city council, and let it govern the city. He would give that body certain powers of administration which reside now in State governments.

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

– It would be a sort of legislative council by whatever name it was called.

Senator HENTY:

– It would be elected by the citizens of Canberra, and would be a mouthpiece for them. They have none at present. It might instil some sense of community pride and feeling into the city. That is long overdue.Finally, Mr. Cole said in the report -

Under the provisions of the National Capital Development Ordinance, 1038, an expert body was set up to advise the Minister at the highest level on all questions relating to the approved plan of Canberra and its development, and the design and siting of its more important public and private buildings.

As chairman of the Public Work’s Committee, I have become a member of the National Capital Planning and Development Committee, and I believe it is an excellent organization. It is based on the Fine Arts Committee in Washington, as Senator McCallum has said. It is an expert committee, and includes architects and engineers from outside Canberra - two from Sydney and two from Melbourne. They are practical men who have toured the world. This is a fine committee, but it has no teeth. That is its trouble. We need a proper city council in Canberra, and all we need to protect the future of this city as a national capital is to give the committee administrative powers to ensure that its recommendations are carried out. If I were the Minister in charge, I would at once implement those suggestions in connexion with administration. In that way we would get some continuity of effort and development in Canberra.

I wish to deal now with some aspects of the Senate committee’s report in which it disagrees with the Public Works Committee. The Parliament referred to the Public Works Committee the proposal to build two new bridges in Canberra, the Canberra water supply and anything else in connexion with the development of the city that the Public Works Committee felt it should consider. We investigated certain aspects of those matters and presented reports before the Senate Select Committee on Canberra was set up. I wish to refer to certain matters in which I disagree with the Senate committee.

Paragraph 270 at page 45 of the Senate committee’s report refers to the recommendation made by the Public Works Committee on the building of a high level road at King’s-avenue. That is the road to the American War Memorial. It crosses the Molonglo by a bridge, and then goes straight to the American memorial. It then turns at right angles and goes towards Civic Centre. After taking much evidence, the Public Works Committee recommended that the road should leave the bridge and travel towards the main road in a direction that would shorten the distance to Civic Centre and the suburbs beyond. The Senate committee reported in this connexion -

The recommendation of the Public Works Committee would mean a disruption of the the peacefulness of this area and a severance of its continuous effect. The Senate committee feels that the Public Works Committee could not have been aware of these implications of its suggestion.

One would have thought that the Senate committee would not have made that recommendation without taking evidence from the chief town planner or the Director of Works.

Senator McCallum:

– They were witnesses.

Senator HENTY:

– They were not witnesses according to your evidence, and I have read it thoroughly.

Debate interrupted.

page 305

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.

That the Senatedo now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 March 1956, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1956/19560320_senate_22_s7/>.