Senate
27 April 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1960

The Senate met at 3 p.m.

page 559

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk:

– I have received advice that the President (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) is unable to attend the sittings of the Senate to-day. In accordance with Standing Order No. 29, the Chairman of Committees will take the chair as Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.

page 559

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1960

Assent reported.

page 559

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY KING

page 559

NORODOM SURAMARIT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- 1 have received a communication from His Excellency the Ambassador for Cambodia thanking the Senate for the feelings of sympathy expressed on the occasion of the death of His Majesty King Norodom Suramarit.

page 559

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation the following questions: Is it true that in February, 1959, the manufacturers of Electras recommended that the usual speeds of the planes be decreased, but that the cut was not made in Australia until March, 1960, and then only after three crashes? If those dates are not correct, will the Minister give the correct dates? Does this suggest that the Government, in forcing the purchase of Electras on TransAustralia Airlines and allowing them to be flown at non-recommended speeds, was endangering the lives of passengers? Is it true that the propeller assembly is troublesome and has led to an unusual number of engine overhauls? In the light of this information, does the Minister still consider that the pressure exercised on T.A.A. not to purchase Caravelles, but permitting the purchase of Electras, was wise or unwise? As one Minister is reported to have said in 1958 that he refused to allow Aus- tralian airlines to be guinea pigs for United States and French airlines, does it not appear that the Government has let Australians be used as guinea pigs for the Lockheed Electra people? With regard to New Guinea, is it true that T.A.A. will have a monopoly of the non-paying developmental lines but that on the remunerative Port Moresby run Ansett-A.N.A. will have equal access with T.A.A.? Is it true that now, because of the superiority of the Caravelle over the Electra, the Douglas company is making the Caravelle under licence in the United States?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The honorable senator was good enough to let me have some notice of the series of questions that he has addressed to me. Such courtesy would, in normal circumstances, warrant a softer answer than I propose to give to some of these questions. First, the honorable senator has asked whether it is true that in February, 1959, the manufacturers of Electras recommended that the usual speeds of the planes be decreased, but that the cut was not made in Australia until March, 1960. The honorable senator’s information is inaccurate. He has misinterpreted the information that has been given to him. In February, 1959, a minor alteration was made to the engine positioning Id these aircraft, and during the brief period when that alteration was being effected a small speed modification was imposed. That modification became effective in Australia immediately. The later speed reduction was not imposed until this year. For the benefit of the honorable senator I point out that the Federal Aviation Agency in America imposed the cut on 21st February, I960, and the Australian authorities imposed the cut on aircraft operated in Australia on the same date and prior to the receipt from the United States of formal notification of the cut in speed.

The second part of the honorable senator’s question is related to the first part. The honorable senator asks whether the Government, in forcing Trans-Australia Airlines to purchase Electras and allowing the Electras to be flown at non-recommended speeds, has endangered the lives of passengers. With the apparent exception of the honorable senator, most people in this country agree that the technical officers of the Department of Civil Aviation have a record second to none in the world. The implication in the honorable senator’s question that the officers of the department have permitted aircraft to fly in this country to the danger of passengers comes near to being a public scandal. In the strongest possible terms I rebuke the honorable senator for making that implication.

The honorable senator asks whether it is true that the propeller assembly of the aircraft is troublesome and has led to an unusual number of engine overhauls. Again the honorable senator’s downtheline information, if 1 may so describe it, is at fault. No, the propeller assembly has not given any trouble of note. What has given some degree of trouble is the gear reduction assembly. Even that trouble has not been in excess of what might be regarded as normal in the introduction of an aircraft into service. The honorable senator asks whether, in the light of this information, the Minister still considers that the pressure exercised on T.A.A. not to purchase Caravelles while permitting the purchase of Electras was wise. I have replied to this question ad nauseam, and I repeat that in the light of the best information in the possession of the Government, it was considered that in 1957, when the decision was made, the introduction of jet aircraft of any type into the domestic airlines would have disadvantages. That decision was taken against a background of the best technical advice available and having regard to aerodrome facilities in this country. I suggest that that decision has been shown in practice to have been the correct decision.

The honorable senator asks whether, despite the fact that a Minister is reported to have said that Australian airlines will not be guinea pigs for United States airlines, the Government has let Australians be used as guinea pigs for the Lockheed Electra people. Lockheed Electras were in operation in other parts of the world for long periods before they were introduced on the Australian network. Let me name just a few of the famous air operators of the world which are using these aircraft. In America there are American Airlines. National Airlines and Eastern Airlines - which has 40 of them. Then there are K.L.M. - an airline which, I imagine, would not be unknown even to Senator

Dittmer - Cathay Pacific, our own Qantas Empire Airways Limited, and Tasman Empire Airways Limited. In view of the fact that all those operators are using this aircraft, I suggest that it is completely fatuous to say that we were permitting any one in Australia to be used as a guinea pig.

The next part of the question asked by the honorable senator related to air services to and in New Guinea, and he spoke of monopoly. There is to be no monopoly for T.A.A. in New Guinea on the trunk route, nor is there to be a monopoly for it on the internal air routes, where there are already two other operators. I am thankful for the way in which the question was phrased. I recall that it was the intention of the Australian Labour Party, when it was in office, to give Qantas a monopoly in New Guinea, and that action by this Government prevented that from being done. If the honorable senator sees something of a disadvantage in the handing over to T.A.A. of what in effect is a ready-made business, I can only tell him that he and his down-the-line informant are at variance with the best opinion yet issued from T.A.A., namely, that of Sir Giles Chippindall, the chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission, who has spoken of his enthusiasm in taking over this service and indicated the potential and actual commercial value of it.

In the last part of his question, the honorable senator asked whether, because of the superiority of the Caravelle over the Electra, the Douglas Aircraft Corporation was making the Caravelle under licence in the United States of America. Briefly, Sir - and I must be brief because I have already taken up so much of the time of the Senate in answering this question - the position was that the Douglas Aircraft Corporation was developing its DC9 aircraft, but, because of further developments which were to occur in the aircraft industry, it found that it would be more economical, and a better proposition, to manufacture an aircraft which had been developed than to continue for a brief period with the development of its DC9. In those circumstances, the corporation decided to enter into an arrangement to manufacture the Caravelle in America. That arrangement is not yet finalized, I inform the honorable senator.

Senator Dittmer:

– Near enough !

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It is not yet finalized.

The honorable senator has asked whether that shows that the Caravelle is a better aircraft than we said it was in 1957. I point out that in 1957, three years ago, we in Australia were talking of a Caravelle Mark 1. aircraft. The Caravelle that is to be developed by the Douglas corporation is not the Mark I. with which we compared other aircraft of the world, but the Caravelle Mark VII. or Mark VIII. That proves that our decision in 1957 was a sound one. Since that time there have been so many improvements of the Caravelle and so many modifications of it, that it is no longer the Mark I. that we were talking about, but the Mark VII. or the Mark VIII.

page 561

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply if he will ascertain whether his colleague is willing to make a statement to the Parliament about the future of the Woomera rocket range. This matter is of particular interest to South Australia, as many South Australians are employed by the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury. I know that the Minister for Supply has kept the Australian public, through the press, as well informed as possible, but he may be able to supply additional information to this Parliament regarding the intentions and hopes of the Government in relation to this project

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

-I shall be pleased to refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Supply. In this field matters seem to be moving at present with some rapidity, and it is quite likely that the Prime Minister, during his visit to the United Kingdom, will discuss this question with the authorities in that country. I shall refer the question to my colleague, and ascertain whether there is any information that can be made available to Senator Pearson.

page 561

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Customs and Excise a question. By way of preface I may say that recently a senior officer of the Department of Customs and Excise made a statement which appeared to confirm reports that exporters of dangerous narcotic drugs from Asian countries were turning their attention to Australia, following the successful measures adopted in the United States of America and other countries to block this nefarious traffic. Will the Minister examine the machinery in his department for controlling the importation or smuggling of narcotics, and ensure that staffing and other facilities are adequate to protect Australia against a serious threat to the welfare of its people, bearing in mind the efficient methods adopted by the world narcotic ring to carry on its illegal activities?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– The statement referred to was made by the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs. The department watches the position very closely. It realizes that successful steps have been taken in other countries to reduce the introduction of narcotics to those countries, and that Australia is probably receiving some added attention by exporters of drugs. We in the Department of Customs and Excise are constantly at battle with people who peddle narcotics. We receive advice, fortunately, from practically every other country, because the authorities in other countries, realizing the extent of this traffic and the damage it can do, act together and inform one another, through their customs agencies, of the latest developments. I can assure the honorable senator that we are looking at our machinery and our staffing position, and that we will do everything possible to continue providing the protection that Australia has enjoyed, and to keep this trade to an absolute minimum.

page 561

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY WATERS

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he can inform the Senate of the progress of preliminary discussions between the Commonwealth Government and the South. Australian Government on the proposed construction of a reservoir at Kulcurna, on the river Murray, in New South Wales.

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

– The Premier of South Australia made representations to the Prime Minister concerning this proposal. We obtained from the Premier the preliminary report of his technical officers, which I submitted to my technical officers so that they might express a tentative opinion upon it. My officers have expressed quite favorable opinions upon the proposals, which are of such extraordinary significance to South Australia, and the Commonwealth has asked the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria whether they agree that the River Murray Commission should investigate the matter and report to the four governments that are interested in the commission.

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Deputy President. 1 ask this question because the matter is of such great importance to South Australia. Does the Minister know that 80 per cent, of the water used in South Australia this year came from the river Murray, and that, because of the absence of other natural features which might be used for water storage, this proportion is likely to increase? Does the Minister know that a vast interconnected water reticulation network throughout South Australia is dependent on river Murray water. Does he know that, without further river Murray water supplies, it is likely that economic expansion in the State of South Australia will come to a stand-still after 1970? Does he know that the Government of South Australia, under the leadership and enterprise of Sir Thomas Playford, is contemplating further extensive water reticulation, including a duplication of the Morgan-Whyalla pipeline? This duplication will be necessary to meet water requirements for the further industrialization of Whyalla, which, in the interests of decentralization and progress, is destined to become one of the most important steel and shipbuilding towns in the Commonwealth.

Will the Minister call for a report from the River Murray Commission on the advisability and feasibility of the proposed new dam coming under the aegis of that body?

Senator SPOONER:

– I think we are all aware of the importance of the river Murray to the economy of South Australia. Under the provisions of the River Murray Agreement, South Australia has a first charge of 1,250,000 acre feet on the waters of the river Murray in a normal year, and, from that 1,250,000 acre feet, has to make good the losses that occur in the flow of the river. In a drought year, South Australia will get three-thirteenths of the flow of the river Murray at Albury, plus any losses due to salination or seepage. That three-thirteenths will amount to approximately 500,000 acre feet. The tremendous importance of the Kalcurna proposal is that in a drought year it will provide another 500,000 acre feet of storage to South Australia. In other words, the Kalcurna proposal can double the South Australian water supply in a drought year.

All the tentative reports we have are favorable to the proposal, but there is no need for me to say that it has to be investigated thoroughly to determine what water levels will result, and to gain some idea of the effect it will have on storage in New South Wales and Victoria. All these questions are being referred to the River Murray Commission.

page 562

QUESTION

PLYWOOD

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade whether the Government is aware that a Japanese company known as Cho Boeki Company Limited is soliciting orders from merchants in Australia for the purchase of its plywood sheets. Is the Government also aware that the plywood referred to is manufactured in Japan at the Naigai Kakko plywood mills and is offered to Australian buyers at £2 0s. 3d. per 100 square feet less than similar quality plywood manufactured in Australia? Will the Government allow Japan to export plywoods to Australia without restriction?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry that I have not sufficient detailed information to be able to answer that question offhand. It looks to me to be one related to import licensing. My recollection is that at the present time there is a restriction upon the importation of this timber into Australia, and that it is expected that this restriction will be removed by about October next. I think that at the present time the transactions to which Senator Benn refers are subject to import licensing.

page 562

QUESTION

HARVESTING MACHINERY

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise, by saying that in the district of Esperance, Western Australia, very heavy crops of barley and oats were grown last year, with the result that great difficulty was experienced in harvesting the grain. The only harvester that proved to be successful was an imported type, known as the Class. It harvested a much higher percentage of grain that did any other harvester that was used. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Government recently imposed a duty on imported headers, amounting to approximately £900 on a header of this type? If this is a fact, will the Minister consider removing the duty on specialized machinery of this type, so that it can be imported freely and can compete with headers manufactured in Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– In accordance with a Tariff Board recommendation, in December, 1959, a duty was imposed on imported headers that were then competing with headers of Australian manufacture. That duty amounted to about £900 or £1,000 on the machine mentioned by the honorable senator. Many representations about this impost were made to me from a number of States where these imported machines were being used. I have had extensive investigations conducted and comparisons made between Australian and imported machines. I have also received representations from some overseas manufacturers who were considering coming to Australia to assemble their machines and partly manufacture them, using some Australian materials. This matter is under close consideration at the moment in my department. I cannot give the honorable senator a definite answer yet, but I hope to make a decision before very long, taking all relevant circumstances into consideration.

page 563

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. First, does the Government agree with the view expressed to certain overseas financial circles that the sterling area is crumbling, that it has lingered too long on the stage and that the practical purposes that it was designed to serve have disappeared or become irrelevant? Secondly, is it a fact that in the immediate post-war decade certain members of the sterling area were large net dollar earners? Thirdly, is it a fact that certain of these dollar-earning countries have now secured their independence and will increasingly insist on spending all their own earnings? Fourthly, is it a fact that this great problem has taken on a new urgency since the emergence of the European Economic Community, which undoubtedly is a rival economic bloc? Finally, will the Government prepare a considered statement on this important subject, so that the minds of the Australian people will be fully informed on this vital and intriguing situation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am very sure that the Australian Government does not subscribe to the view expressed in the first words of the lengthy question, namely, that the sterling area is crumbling. Far from it! The rest of the question, if I may say so, covers such a multitude of subjects and embraces so very many matters that I think it only proper that the question should go on notice, so that it may be read, studied and examined, and an answer prepared.

page 563

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. “PERTH

Senator MCKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for the Navy refers to a report that has been circulated, throughout New South Wales at any rate, during the past week or so to the effect that the Japanese Government has had under consideration the raising of the warship, H.M.A.S. “Perth”. Does the Minister know whether there is any truth in this story and if so can he give the Senate any details?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– The story that the warship, H.M.A.S. “Perth”, might be raised for salvage came to my attention some days ago. I think the story arose from the publication of a report that a Japanese salvage firm was in negotiation with the Indonesian Government with the object of raising some hundreds of ships which had been sunk in the vicinity of Indonesia during the war. It was believed that H.M.A.S. “Perth” might be one of those ships. I had inquiries made through our ambassadors when that story came to my notice. From information I have received up to the present it appears to me to be fairly clear that H.M.A.S. “Perth” is in fact not one of the ships which may be raised for salvage, and not one of the ships which so far have been surveyed by this salvage firm and identified.

Senator McKellar:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question.

Senator GORTON:

– I have not finished answering the present question and before any supplementary question is asked 1 should like to express my view that H.M.A.S. “ Perth “ which went down, with her crew, in one of the most gallant sea battles of the Second World War - ringed by the Japanese fleet and fighting singlehanded until the waves broke over her fo’c’sle - should be left in peace where she lies on the seabed.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I apologize for interrupting the Minister before he had finished his answer. I ask him now whether he will give an assurance to the Senate and to the Australian people that we adopt the same course as does America in that ships which go down in battle are left undisturbed with their dead in them.

Senator GORTON:

– I am sure that I can say that the Australian Government believes that Australian warships, provided they are in no sense a hazard to navigation because of their position, should be left undisturbed.

page 564

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator DITTMER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Minister knows that my mind is not of the parochial type, but we do accept State responsibilities occasionally. Is it true that the workshop situated in Boundary-street, Brisbane, and controlled by the Premises Department of the Commonwealth Bank, is to be closed on 30th June, 1960? Is it true that the workshop represents an investment of many thousands of pounds, and that in making furniture for the Commonwealth Bank and serving other purposes, it effects a saving of from £6,000 to £12,000 a year? Is it true that since the reconstruction of the bank the workshop had to overhaul and bring up to first-class condition a table and chairs purchased for the new Reserve Bank from a Sydney firm for £ 1 ,000? I understand that similar workshops exist in Melbourne and Adelaide. Does the bank intend to close those workshops also? If so, will the Treasurer take steps to see that none of these workshops is closed?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

- Senator Dittmer notified me that he intended to ask this question and I have had the opportunity to discuss it with the Treasurer, who has advised that, first of all, he would like to make it clear that the matters raised by the honorable senator concerning the administration of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and of its associated banks, are matters that come entirely within the province of the corporation rather than of the Government. However, I understand that for some years the Commonwealth Bank operated a furniture workshop in Brisbane and that following the recent re-organization of the Commonwealth group of banks, workshops were taken over by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. The workshop in question has been used for the manufacture of furniture and fittings for branches of the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank in Queensland and parts of New South Wales. I also understand that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has decided to close the workshop in June next, but I am not aware of the considerations that were involved in this decision. I am not in a position to comment on the figures that have been quoted by the honorable senator. As to the workshops in Melbourne and Adelaide, I have been informed that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation does not operate in those cities, or in any city other than Brisbane, workshops for the manufacture of furniture, although it does operate furniture maintenance workshops. I am not aware of any decision by the corporation to close these maintenance workshops.

page 564

QUESTION

FLOOD RELIEF IN TASMANIA

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I desire to direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question respecting the flood relief grant that has been promised so quickly by the Commonwealth Government as a result of the very serious damage and losses that were caused last week-end by disastrous floods in Hobart and other parts of southern Tasmania. Can the Minister inform me when Commonwealth officials will be available to confer with Tasmanian officials so that at least a part of the grant can be made available quickly to help those who are in need of immediate financial assistance?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I can do no more than to say that the Commonwealth stands ready and prepared to implement the offer that it made yesterday to the Tasmanian

Government. After we had considered the situation in Cabinet, we came to the conclusion that, having regard to the magnitude of the disaster in Tasmania, we should not hesitate, but should come forward promptly with an offer of assistance. We have made an offer on a £1 for £1 basis. We have offered to provide 50 per cent, of all sums that the Tasmanian Government thinks could justifiably be spent on the relief of hardship. We will do the same in respect of capital losses that the Tasmanian Government has incurred through damage to roads, bridges and other public assets. As to the mechanics of the matter, I am quite certain that if the Tasmanian Government gets in touch with us, Commonwealth officers will be readily made available to work out the figures in detail, if indeed, that is not already being done.

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– 1 desire to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a supplementary question concerning the matter that has just been mentioned by Senator Marriott. In view of the widespread damage to public and private property suffered throughout Tasmania during the recent devastating floods - which, as we are all aware, can be described as the worst in the history of the State, causing losses estimated conservatively at between £4.000,000 and £5,000,000- will the Minister say whether it is a fact that all public and private contributions to the Lord Mayor’s fund for the relief of those who have suffered loss in this disaster will be free of tax?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– It is a fact that subscriptions by members of the public to this fund will be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I, too, would like to direct a supplementary question, to the Minister representing the Treasurer. He has stated that the Government is prepared to make a contribution in both fields on a £1 for £1 basis. Having regard to the set-up of the Australian Loan Council and to the financial position of Tasmania, where does the Minister suggest that the Tasmanian Government will get the money necessary to qualify for the £1 for £1 grant that has been offered by the Federal Government?

Senator SPOONER:

– I thought I said that this was considered very carefully and,

I hope, very sympathetically, by Cabinet yesterday afternoon. Senator Hendrickson may take it from me that we satisfied ourselves that Tasmania has the resources readily available to step in and do what is needed at this stage.

page 565

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. The austerity measures in relation to air travel have now been in force for more than six months. Can the Minister say whether the economies have made any appreciable difference to the profits of the major airlines, or have been of any advantage to them? Does the Minister consider that such additional profits, if any, outweigh the loss of goodwill on the part of the travelling public due to cheese-paring economies such as the cancellation of free travel between airline offices and airports and the reduction of meal standards? Is the Minister aware that the pioneer airline company in Western Australia, MacRobertson-Miller Airlines, which serves the north-west and the outback areas of the State, has not restricted its service to the public and continues to give a first-class, efficient and courteous service, with all amenities, including free daily papers, free travel between airline offices and airports and a very high standard of meals, despite the difficulties arising from the type of aircraft which are used for outback work?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I feel perfectly sure that the alterations or adjustments, which were subsequently modified, in respect of meals served on the trunk airline routes in Australia have had the effect which the airlines set out to obtain. I do not know what this means in terms of actual cash, but I shall find out and I shall be delighted to let the honorable senator know. I keep pretty closely in touch with these matters, and I can say that since the service of breakfast on aircraft was restored I have not heard any complaints within recent weeks about the other food served, until to-day, when the honorable senator raised the matter herself. No one else in Australia has complained about it to me either by correspondence or in any other way.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is not so, because I wrote a letter to you, along with others.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That was a long time ago, prior to the modification of the breakfast arrangement.

Senator Kennelly:

– No, it was not.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I advise Senator Kennelly to check his recollection. You cannot really compare the meals served by MacRobertson-Miller Airlines with the meals formerly served on the trunk air routes of Australia - and I say that with very great respect to that company, with which I travel quite a lot and which 1 greatly admire. Any one who uses that service at all will know that that is the case. The MacRobertson-Miller meals have never been of a standard that compared with the standard of the meals served by the other airlines. By and large, I think that the meals provided are meeting the requirements of the Australian air travelling public satisfactorily.

page 566

QUESTION

AIR ACCIDENT AT PEARCE AERODROME

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. Can he tell the Senate the result of the inquiry into the air disaster which occurred at Pearce aerodrome in Western Australia on Thursday, 21st April, when a Vampire Jet crashed, killing the pilot?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I think the honorable senator will know that on the day after the crash an investigation team was despatched to Pearce and began an investigation immediately. I understand that that investigation has not yet concluded. As soon as any details can be released to the public, I am sure that that will be done.

page 566

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator TANGNEY:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Air say what savings have been effected by the introduction of a separate charge for coach travel between airways offices and airports? Also, what savings have been effected by the discontinuance of free newspapers and barley sugar for airways passengers?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The distribution of free newspapers on trunk air services was discontinued so many years ago that I have almost forgotten that such things ever existed. Free newspapers were probably discontinued six or seven years ago. Without doubt considerable savings have been effected through the cessation of free bus travel to and from airports. I do not know the extent of those savings, but I will have inquiries made and will supply the honorable senator with such information as I obtain.

page 566

QUESTION

AIR SERVICE TO SOUTH AFRICA

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. lt is reported that, because of the large number of South Africans who wish to settle in Australia, delays of up to two years will occur before transport is available for them. Will the Minister consider the introduction of an adequate air service between this country and South Africa so that these people may come here with the minimum of delay?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Up to date the air service operated by Qantas to South Africa has not been a paying service. I have no doubt that if there is a bank-up of passengers waiting to come from South Africa to Australia, Qantas will be alive to the need to increase the service in order to meet the increasing patronage. I feel sure that Qantas, in those circumstances, would ask me to enter into such negotiations as may be necessary with the South African Government to obtain a modification of the present agreement. I will confer with Qantas and ascertain the present position.

page 566

QUESTION

GLIDER HELICOPTERS

Senator McMANUS:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question regarding an advertisement that appeared recently in Melbourne newspapers. The advertisement reads -

You can be one of the first in Australia to own a ‘copter. Build the glider version at a cost of under £100. Teach yourself to fly in six hours towed by a car.

No pilot licence or registration necessary. This aircraft is capable of flying to a height of 12,500 feet when fitted with a motor-cycle engine.

Will the Minister comment on the advertisement, particularly on the claim that the aircraft can fly to a height of 12,500 feet if powered by a certain type of engine and that no licence or registration is required?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am sorry that 1 have not seen the advertisement referred to. I should be pleased to obtain a copy of the advertisement from the honorable senator so that I may submit it to the officers of my department. Off hand, I would say that the advertisement appears to be highly imaginative, to say the least.

page 567

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question which deals with a matter that came to my notice recently at a gathering of exservicemen. We were told that a war pensioner with a salary of £1,040 a year pays approximately £7 a year more in tax than an ordinary individual earning the same amount of money. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to this position? If so, can something be done to correct this situation in favour of the war pensioner?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– In this instance the honorable senator was good enough to give me time to confer with the Treasurer.

Senator Sandford:

– We are having a lot of Dorothy Dix-ers to-day.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– A few came from the other side of the chamber, so I cannot be accused of being partial. The Treasurer has replied -

As honorable senators may be aware, repatriation pensions paid to ex-servicemen and their wives are exempt from tax. However, the pension received by a wife forms part of her separate net income and therefore enters into the ascertainment of the deduction available in respect of her maintenance. It is because of this that the seeming anomaly which the honorable senator puts forward arises. The principle is that a deduction for maintenance of a dependant is adjusted when a dependant’s separate income relieves the taxpayer of the expense of maintaining the dependant. This principle has been accepted by successive governments for decades. The question of departing from this principle would involve an enlargement of the income tax concessional allowances. In those circumstances it would be more appropriate for the matter to be examined when the Budget is being prepared. I will undertake to have the honorable senator’s request considered at that time.

page 567

QUESTION

EUROPEAN MARKETS

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I ask the

Leader of the Government whether he has had time to study the Hallstein plan. If so, will he say whether he is on the side of the United States, which promoted the Marshall plan, which in turn forshadowed the united states of Europe, or whether he is on the side of Britain, which is desperately fighting to stop the six members of the European Common Market from becoming too exclusive? Does he still persist with the view that the cold war between the Inner Six and the Outer Seven will be of value to Australia or is he still in the dark regarding this most important matter?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– First, will the honorable senator supply me with a copy of the Hallstein plan? I do not recognize the plan by that name. Is it the report of the committee that was set up to consider the ramifications of the European Common Market and the Outer Seven.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Yes.

Senator SPOONER:

– I am sorry to say that I have not yet seen that report, and therefore I am not able to help the honorable senator very much.

page 567

QUESTION

STEEL

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Does Australia import steel and, if so- (a) how many tons were imported from Japan during the past three years and how many tons is it estimated will be imported from Japan in 1959/60, and (b) how many tons were imported from other sources during the past three years and how many tons is it estimated will be imported from other sources during 1959/60?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Trade has informed me as follows: -

Australia imports steel of certain specifications which it is not economic to make locally and also of types where local production is not sufficient to meet demand. The tonnage of steel and steel mill products imported during the past three years has been as follows:

There has been a strong upsurge in local demand for most types of steel mill products since the third quarter of 1959 which local production is unable to meet. Depending upon availability of supplies from overseas sources, it is estimated that in 1959/60 imports from Japan will be 25.000 tons and from all other countries 150,000 tons.

page 568

QUESTION

TRADE UNION BALLOTS

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Which trade unions in 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 requested that their ballots to elect officers and committees be conducted by Commonwealth authorities?
  2. In what cases were the requests made (a) by union committees, and (b) by petition of members?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– My colleague has furnished the following answer: -

  1. and 2. The following schedule provides the information sought in respect of requests that ballots for elections be conducted under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act: -

page 568

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

How many claims for repatriation benefits were (a) made, and (b) rejected, in each State of the Commonwealth during the last five years?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The following answer is now supplied: -

I have previously replied to Senator Sandford, on 12th May, 1959, that it is not possible without a considerable amount of work and expense, to state the decisions on applications for pension and/or medical treatment lodged during any particular period. I am sure the honorable senator will appreciate that at the termination of any particular period there must be a number of applications which have not been decided.

Subject to the above, the answers to the questions are -

During the years 1955-59 claims received, for acceptance of a member’s death or disability as due to war service, were as follows: -

Cb) The numbers of claims determined and rejected for each of the above years are as follows: - However, many of these rejected claims have succeeded subsequently on appeal to the Repatriation Commission or the Entitlement Appeal Tribunals. During the years concerned the numbers of appeals allowed were as follows : - {: .page-start } page 569 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### PUBLIC SERVICE {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-K2S} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When will Parliament be given an opportunity to discuss the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Service recruitment? 1. Have any decisions yet been made to amend the Public Service Act in respect of the employment of married women and the sex barrier which has implications in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Service; if so, what is the nature of those decisions? {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
LP -- The following answer is now supplied: - 1 and 2. The Government has been considering the recommendations of the committee of inquiry, including the question of the employment of married women. When this has been completed there will need to be amendments to the Public Service Act and there will then be an opportunity for Parliament to consider the recommendations of the committee and the Government's decisions on them. {: .page-start } page 570 {:#debate-25} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-25-0} #### ACCIDENT AT WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, SALISBURY {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice - >Relative to the explosion which recently occurred at the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury, South Australia, causing the death of a woman and serious injuries to others, as well as extensive damage to property, will the Prime Minister advise - (a) Whether the investigation made by the security service prior to the explosion has disclosed any of the political parties as being responsible for the explosion, as the investigators seemed to imply? (b) Whether the investigation made by the security service since the explosion disclosed any of the political parties as being responsible for the explosion? (c) Whether it was gross negligence and carelessness which caused the explosion? {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
LP -- The following answer is now supplied: - >The accident referred to is being investigated by the Operational Safety Committee of the Department of Supply. When the committee's report is submitted it will be considered by the Minister for Supply. {: .page-start } page 570 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### SUGAR {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Trade recently receive a deputation from persons interested in the canning fruit industry with regard to the proposed increase in the price of sugar? 1. Was the variation of the price of rebate sugar used by jam manufacturers, canners and others, discussed? 2. What decisions, if any, were reached? {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. No decisions were reached. The members of the deputation were informed that their representations would receive full consideration when the Government's decision on an increase in the sugar price was being taken. {: .page-start } page 570 {:#debate-27} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-27-0} #### TIMBER {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are the import licences which were issued to permit processed timber to be imported from New Guinea still in operation? 1. If so, how many licences are there, and what is the total quantity of timber involved annually? {: #subdebate-27-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
LP -- The Minister for Trade has now informed me as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Licences have never been required to import goods produced in Papua-New Guinea. They have always been exempt from licensing. 1. Imports of timber from Papua-New Guinea in the last three years were: {: .page-start } page 570 {:#debate-28} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-28-0} #### FLOUR {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact, as reported in a news item broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission on 30th March, that Japanese exporters are taking advantage of lower milling costs and freight rates to undersell Australian flour in a number of Australia's traditional markets in South-East Asia? 1. Is it a fact that Japanese flour is being sold in Thailand in calico bags marked with the words " Milled from finest Australian wheat " but with no indication of where it was milled? 2. If the answers to 1. and 2. are in the affirmative, what action does the Minister propose to take to safeguard Australian millers from such unfair trading practice by a competitor with whom we have a trade agreement? {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
LP -- The Minister for Trade has now informed me as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For several years, Japan has been a competitor in some South-East Asian flour markets, which she is favorably located to supply. However, her share of these markets is comparatively small in comparison with that of Australia and other suppliers. 1. No complaints have been received from official or trade sources that Japanese flour is sold in Thailand in bags marked in the manner indicated by the honorable senator. 2. See answers to 1. and 2. {: .page-start } page 571 {:#debate-29} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-29-0} #### WHEAT {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-K0L} ##### Senator PEARSON: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When is the second advance on wheat delivered to the Australian Wheat Board from the 1958-59 harvest likely to be paid? 1. If the advance is likely to be long-delayed, will the Minister give consideration to drawing on (he Wheat Stabilization Fund for the time being to enable the advance to be made and recouping the Stabilization Fund from proceeds of wheat when it is sold? 2. Is it not a fact that payment of the advance at an early date would be of considerable assistance to farmers who experienced a poor season in South Australia last year? {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. a date has not yet been recommended to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Australian Wheat Board. However, on recent estimates it appears it may be possible for the board to make a payment by June next. 1. The Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund is a trust account and its use in the way suggested is not practicable. 2. Yes, that fact is fully appreciated. {: .page-start } page 571 {:#debate-30} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-30-0} #### COMPANY REGISTRATION {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many companies were registered in the Australian Capital Territory during last year? 1. What was the amount of registration fees paid? 2. Is death duty payable to any State in respect of shares in companies registered in the Australian Capital Territory? 3. Is stamp duty payable to any State or to the Commonwealth in respect of transfers of shares in such companies? {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
LP -- The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 921, comprising 658 incorporated m the Australian Capital Territory and 263 foreign companies. 1. £37,436 5s. 2. and 4. To the extent that the answers to these questions depend upon the relevant provisions of State law, it is not within my province to answer. Stamp duty is not payable to the Commonwealth in respect of transfers of shares in companies registered in the Australian Capital Territory. {: .page-start } page 571 {:#debate-31} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-31-0} #### PARLIAMENT HOUSE {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice - >What was the cost of (a) the false roof on Parliament House and (b) the staff quarters built on Parliament House roof? {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Sir WALTER COOPER: -- The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers:- - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. £41,889. (b) £10,015. {: .page-start } page 571 {:#debate-32} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-32-0} #### PEANUTS {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are peanuts being imported from New Guinea in accordance with import licences? 1. If so, is it intended to allow the licences to continue while there are 20,000 tons of unsaleable peanuts stored at Kingaroy, Queensland? {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
LP -- The Minister for Trade has now informed me as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and 2. Licences have never been required to import any of the products of Papua-New Guinea. They have always been exempt from licensing. {: .page-start } page 571 {:#debate-33} ### POSTAL CHARGES {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Formal Motion for Adjournment The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).** - I have received from **Senator Willesee** an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely - >The undesirability of continuing postal, telephone and telegraph charges at recently increased rates (estimated to provide an additional sum of £16,200,000 in a full year and £10,000,000 in 1959-60) especially in the light of the profit exceeding £6,000,000 disclosed in the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General for 1958-59 tabled in the Senate on 16th March, 1960. {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- I move - >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) - {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I feel impelled, on behalf of the Opposition, to make this motion as a matter of urgency. I do so in order to direct the attention of the Senate to the action taken by the Government in increasing postal charges, action which was foreshadowed in the budget brought down last year and which was finally taken by means of legislation subsequently introduced by the Government. I believe this matter should be brought to the attention of the Senate and of the people, first because of the criticism levelled at the Government's proposals when they were first put forward, and secondly because of the information which is now in the hands of the Government. Whatever justification there may have been for foreshadowing these increased charges when the budget provisions were being considered - and we realize that a budget is not prepared in five minutes - we submit in all seriousness that there is no justification for continuing these increased postal, telephone and telegraph charges. When one examines the position, it is obvious that the increases were not brought about by the demands of the PostmasterGeneral's Department or by any necessity to bolster the finances of that department. They were dictated by the necessity to increase revenue over the Budget as a whole. You may recall, **Mr. Deputy President,** that the Budget provided for p flat rate reduction of 5 per cent, in income tax. There was a reduction of one half penny a gallon on aviation spirit, and there were some concessions granted to mining companies. Further concessions were also provided to make the position easier for organizations engaged in the search for oil. These budgetary concessions amounted in all to £25,130,000 for a full year. It is coincidental that the amounts estimated to be raised by increased postal charges, together with the savings to be made because of the imposition of a charge of 5/- for pharmaceutical prescriptions, amounted to about £25,000,000, of which £17,800.000 was estimated to come from increased charges in the Postmaster-General's Department. If there had been a reason for a reduction of income tax, in the way provided by the Government, these criticisms might not have been appropriate. But it is as plain as a pikestaff that there was no need to make a flat reduction of 5 per cent, in income tax, the result of which was to provide substantial concessions for those who could best afford to pay income tax, and practically nothing for the working man. Obviously, 5 per cent, of several thousand pounds is a substantial amount of money, while 5 per cent, of a few shillings a week taken out of the pay envelopes of the workers amounts to practically nothing. The effect of the provisions in the budget was to remove a certain burden from those who could best afford to pay, and to transfer it to those who could not. When interviewed in a television programme, the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said that practically all of this increased burden, which was estimated to be £17,800,000 at the time, but which was subsequently reduced to £16,200,000 after certain concessions were made following strong criticism, would fall on the big businesses of Australia, which, of course, could claim the increased expenditure as a deduction for income-tax purposes. The Government is very fond of telling us how costs rise because of wage increases, but it is clear that if costs are increased in industry or in business firms, the burden must finally be borne by the consumer. If you impose an extra cost burden on your transport industries, your clothing manufacturers or your local bakers by way of increased postal charges, inevitably the extra cost will be passed down the line and will finally be met by the persons who buy the products or pay for the services. It is obvious that considerations of this kind prompted the increase in postal charges. These charges were not increased because the Postmaster-General's Department required extra money to provide the important services that it gives to the people. The department was merely a pawn in the game. The increased charges represented just another way in which the Treasurer or the Government, could play Father Christmas to the high-income earners at the expense of others in the community. There are many ways in which governments raise money, by means of taxation and other charges, to provide various community services. In the field of social services a straight-out tax is imposed, and that is an end of it. In the provision of medical services the Government insists on a certain amount of money being paid to designated private organizations, and the further sums that are required are provided by the taxpayers. Instead of financing pharmaceutical benefits entirely by taxation, the Government insists upon a minimum charge of 5s. for some prescriptions and full payment for others. Hitherto a certain amount of money has been taken from taxation revenue to meet the requirements of the Postmaster-General's Department. In addition, certain other charges have been made for the obvious purpose of preventing indiscriminate use of the services provided by that department. But now we have this novel procedure which, according to a speech made by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** towards the end of last year, is designed to meet interest charges on the money that we have already paid as taxpayers for the provision of services through the Postmaster-General's Department. I might mention that the Treasurer spoke of getting business into government. I suggest that on this occasion he is getting everything mixed up. This is something entirely different from subscribing money to a public company which is expected to pay interest on that investment. Investments in public companies are made voluntarily from funds that people have been able to save from earnings after paying taxation and meeting the cost of living. The Government's proposal amounts to nothing more than the compulsory acquisition of money from the people for the provision of a service to the people, lt is an attempt by the Government to take extra money from the people merely to create a fictitious account, so that the Government may then say to the people, " Look at what good boys we are; we have charged you more so that you will be able to say that your income is higher because of the interest you will earn on the extra money you are being charged! " It would be an entirely different matter if the Government were seeking to establish a development fund, but even that system has been criticized. We all know that development funds that have been accumulated by various companies in Australia have been criticized by economists as inflationary. Surely the Government does not propose following that tortuous path; surely it does not propose to do these things simply because private companies are doing them! I. wonder whether the fertile-minded man who has been advising the Government on these matters is visualizing the adoption of a similar practice in connexion with our various social services! Why does this imaginative man not suggest applying the same system to sickness and unemployment benefits? Why does he not suggest imposing an extra burden on the person who is already contributing by way of taxation to the funds from which he will draw his sickness or unemployment benefit? The Government would then be able to say at the end of the year, " The sickness and unemployment benefits fund is in a healthy position because during the year it has paid not only sickness and unemployment benefits but also interest on the money extracted from the people to pay those benefits? " The principle could be extended to age pensions and other ridiculous lengths. If the Government is successful with the proposal about which we now complain, goodness knows where the practice will end. Then comes the question of the rate of interest that money invested for this security - as the Government would term it - should return. It is interesting to note that the Treasurer suggested that it should be the bond rate of interest. That being so, I assume that he suggests that it should be between *4i* per cent, and 5 per cent. But where will it all end? If I remember correctly - and I shall be happy to be corrected by way of interjection if I am wrong - Postal Department buildings alone are valued at about £38,000,000, based on the original cost of construction. Let me cite one city as an example. In Perth, the post office, which is a concrete and steel building constructed in 1923, is still a modern structure. If that office and the other post office buildings in Australia, together with line depots, telephone exchanges and so on, were to be revalued, I venture the opinion that the £38,000.000 would be multiplied many times. If the current proposal were followed through, to its logical conclusion, there would be an interest charge on the new capital valuation. Why do not the accountants who seek to introduce strict accounting principles into the Postmaster-General's Department and. indeed, all government departments, carry their thesis through to its conclusion and bring the value of our fixed assets and capital equipment to a modern figure? When I was thinking about this, I thought of an analogous procedure which alarmed me a little and which I certainly hope the women of Australia do not adopt. A housewife might say to her husband, " The amount of money you are allowing me for house-keeping enables me to do all the things required of me. It enables me to provide food for my family, clothing for the children and so on, but, at the end of the year, I find I have nothing left. If you were to give me another £5 a week I would be able to continue doing what 1 am doing now and then, at the end of the year, I. would be able to say that 1 was a clever girl because I had been able to save something as well. " I do not see *any* difference between that and what the Treasurer seeks to do in connexion with (he Postmaster-General's Department. We cannot dodge the fact that this proposal will boost inflation because it will take from the pockets of the people more money than is required. It was very interesting to note that when speaking to a debate similar to this in another place, the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** completely evaded the question of paying interest on the value of capital assets. One page of the " Hansard " report of his speech is taken up by references to what members of the Labour Party said ten years ago, and another page is devoted to what **Mr. Crean** had said as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Not once did the Minister attempt to defend this proposal to pay interest on capital already invested. He may have done that when he spoke about the matter last year, but on the recent occasion he completely evaded the issue. I was interested to notice that the reply to the Opposition's attack in the House of Representatives was made not by the Postmaster-General but by the Treasurer, and I shall be very interested to see whether the reply to this debate is offered by the representative of the Postmaster-Genera! or the representative of the Treasurer. I repeat what we have been saying all along. This is an attempt to levy taxation for purposes not related to the PostmasterGeneral's Department. The department is being used merely as a pawn or an excuse for raising extra money. Another argument used by the Government is the increasing costs in the department. As I have pointed out, the department has been . able to meet these costs already and show a profit of over £6,000,000. If that profit had been a flash in the pan, if there had been a Joss in the previous year and then suddenly, for some unknown reason, or some reason best known to the Postmaster-General's Department, a profit of £6,000,000, it would be a different matter. But a perusal of the annual report of the department discloses that profits in all branches have been increasing. The overall profit of £6,000,000 is £2,000,000 higher than that made last year. An examination of page 54 of the report will show that the Postal Branch improved its position by moving from a deficit of £2,000,000 to a deficit of only £850,000. It discloses also that the Telephone Branch increased its profit from £6,294,000 to £6,935,000 and that the Telegraph Branch reduced its loss of £330,000 to only £41,000. That reduction was the result of the introduction of the Tress equipment. That system of telegram transmission had been introduced and it was not to be taken out of use in five minutes. Therefore, the Government could look for further improvements in the Telegraph Branch. Obviously, before the Government increased rates last year, the position was that the Australian public had paid sufficient in postal charges to enable the department to provide the services that it believed should be given to the public, at the same time making, not a mean profit, but an increasing profit, up to £6,000,000. The Government suggested that the proposed increased charges would raise the department's profits by £17,800,000, but the Government reduced this estimate to £16,200,000 after abandoning, in the face of violent opposition, some of the more objectionable of the proposed imposts. The Government's estimate of the cost of sending all letters by airmail where possible was £700,000. In passing, if **Mr. Ansett** does not reward the man who thought of that for him, he is a very mean fellow. He should promote him immediately to head of a department. The argument that increased costs justify increased charges would be valid only if the department were losing money. That argument is not valid when the department is making a profit, while doing all those things that it is expected to do. Since the charges were imposed, all sorts of stories have been told. We have heard about the basic wage increase and the 28 per cent, increase in margins. We have been told that the terrible unions are forcing costs up. People who say these things are getting their dates a little mixed. The basic wage judgment which awarded a 15s. rise was given on 11th June of last year. The Postmaster-General said that the cost to the department of that rise would be about £3,000,000 a year. I thought it would have been a little more. However, that increased cost was known and had to be taken into consideration when the Budget was being framed. The Budget Speech was made on 11th August last year, and the PostmasterGeneral introduced the bill to give effect to the increased rates on 1st September. The margins judgment, about which we have heard so much, was not given until 27th November, so it is completely untrue to say that increased post and telegraph charges were caused by margins increases and the basic wage increase. The basic wage increase was the only wage increase within the knowledge of the Government when it fixed the rates. The Government did not know whether or not margins would be increased. It is completely dishonest to use that increase, as it was used in another place, as a justification for the increased charges. It would be most interesting to hear representatives of the Australian Country Party on this subject, because these increased charges were imposed when we lost an Australian Country Party Treasurer. The people who will be hit hardest by these increased costs are those who are forced most of all to use the department's services - the people in country areas. The Postal Department has over the years played a great part in providing services to people in far-flung places, where these services are needed so badly. I noticed a most intriguing passage in **Mr. Davidson's** original speech, when seeking to justify the increased charges. He made a comparison of costs of the Postal Department, taking 1951 as a base year, but when he came to deal with increased charges, he took 1956 as a base year. Even the merest novice would surely take the same base year for both comparisons. In a comparison of costs he went back nine years, but he enumerated the increased charges only since 1956. Charges by the Postmaster-General's Department were increased in 1951, again in 1955, again in 1956, and again in 1959. That is not bad in ten years of government. The Government talks about increased costs. lt should not forget that the responsibility for increased costs lies squarely at its door, because of the inflationary tendencies it has allowed to rage in this country and which it has, in fact, encouraged during that time. When some one uses an argument such as the Postmaster-General used, taking two different base years, we have to make up our minds whether he is naive or a fool. He is certainly one or the other. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKellar: -- Do not be rude. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I must be factual. Can the honorable senator suggest any other alternative? When a person compares costs over ten years and increased charges over four years, he is either naive or a fool. There is no justification for seeking a return on capital. That is simply a dishonest approach rc the question of costs, which does not bear examination at all. A peculiar sort of defence has been made. It is about the most muddled and halfhearted presentation of a case that I have ever heard in this Parliament, even from those who sit on the Government front bench - and that is saying something! The Government says that a committee has been established to look into the accounts of the Postal Department. It seems to be the technique of this Government to set up so-called independent committees and then to control them. We have had a perfect example of that in the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission over the last few months. The Government established the commission and then bombarded it with the whole weight of the Government, through every newspaper in Australia, virtually instructing the commission what to do. We see the same technique in the so-called balance maintained between Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-A.N.A. The technique is evident in the appointment of this committee to inquire into the accounts of the Postmaster-General's Department. The Government appoints a committee to advise on charges, but, before getting the committee's decision, the Government prejudges the issue, saying, " We will charge interest at such-and-such a rate on the capital invested ". All that the Government is doing is setting up the committee as a front. If the Government is not instructing the committee, it is using ail the influence of a government on it - and, after all, the influence of a Commonwealth government is very considerable indeed, particularly when that government has itself established 'the committee. The Government is using all its influence on the committee, but in years to come it will say to this Parliament, " That is what was recommended by an independent committee, completely free of bias, duress or threat ". The Government is pre-judging the matter and writing' Rs judgment into the statutebook and into the history of the PostmasterGeneral's Department before getting the committee's report. Because of the Government's attitude, there is a decline in the use of postal services at the same time as there is an increase in the population of Australia. The Government is driving the telegram almost completely out of the thoughts of the people. Nobody to-day thinks about sending a telegram, unless he is compelled to do so. lt may be said that the traffic is passing to trunk-line telephor.es, but many of the population are unable to use a telephone, first, because they cannot afford to have one installed, and secondly, because, even if they can afford one, they cannot get one. It is quite wrong to put the telegram out as a means of communication. If ever there was a time when telegraph rates should be reduced, it is now, following the introduction of Tress, which has revolutionized and cheapened the handling of telegrams. The Government could, if it wished, restore the popularity of that form of communication. All it would be doing would be using to the full the capital equipment which has cost so much to install. A series of matters of urgency has been raised in the Senate over the last few weeks. It is a serious matter to move for the adjournment of the Senate in order to point out to the Government what should be done. I am hoping that to-day we shall get the Government to reply to the accusations that we make. Surely the British Medical Association has not an interest in this department. Surely **Mr. Ansett** has not yet taken over the Postmaster-General's Department. At long last we should b'able to get a reply from a Minister, free from bias, not looking over bis shoulder for somebody who is controlling his department to tell him what to do. Surely wc should be able to get an honest reply from some one, even if he is not the Minister representing the Postmaster-General in this place. In the past, the theme song of ministers has appeared to be, " Look over my shoulder. Who is walking behind? " On this occasion, I hope that we shall get an honest debate and hear some justification for continuing these additional charges. This is nothing more nor less than a shifting of the incidence of taxation from wealthy business people, per medium of the PostmasterGeneral's Department, on to the backs of the consumers. It is a political stunt that has been seen through by the people of Australia, and it should not be tolerated any longer. Because of that, **Mr. Acting President,** no matter what may have been said twelve months ago, the Opposition is placing before the Senate the true position in regard to the accounts of the PostmasterGeneral, and it is letting the Senate know the hostility that is being felt by the people. The Minister should examine the telephone applications that have been cancelled and the number of services that have been discontinued. If he had done that he would have reversed his decision long ago. If the Government had approached the Parliament and said that it wanted another £16,000,000 because it proposed to increase the rate of telephone installations there would probably have been little opposition to the Government's request. But the Government cannot be proud of its record in telephone installation. Because of the planning that takes place in housing in the capital cities at least, the Government should have known that a virgin piece of land would, within a period of three years, have 600 or 800 homes placed on it. The Postmaster-General's Department should have been there on the spot ready to sell its telephones, just as the butcher is there ready to sell his meat. But the department has never acted in that way; it has failed completely all along the line. If the Government had stated plainly that it wanted additional funds to speed up telephone installations, it would not have had the opposition it is meeting to-day, not only from the Opposition, but from the people of Australia. I repeat that this is a taxation stunt and a completely dishonest approach to the problem. The increases are completely unnecessary because they were awarded at a time when, apparently, the Government wanted to reduce taxation. The Government should have had a look at ihe lower echelons of taxpayers and not merely granted a 5 per cent, reduction all round. The Government should have foregone that kind of taxation relief. It should have effected savings in departmental expenditure and not made the dishonest approach of merely shifting taxation money from its proper place in the Treasury across to the Postmaster-General's Department. I have pleasure in submitting this motion and I shall be most interested to hear whether the Government can justify its action in raising £16,000,000 of taxation by means of the Postmaster-General's Department. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP -- I have listened with, I hope, great attention to what **Senator Willesee** has had to say, and have done my best to follow his tortuous approach to this subject. In essence, he alleged that the increased charges were unnecessary and that the Government had imposed them merely to enable it to reduce income tax, thus accentuating the inflationary spiral for which he claimed the Government to be responsible. That, I think, is the burden of his complaint. I leave on one side his foolish statement about a dishonest approach on the part of the Government. That statement merely illustrated that he lacked an understanding of the problem. Instead of endeavouring as he should in a debate of this kind to depend on logic, he was forced into a position in which he had to turn to abuse. I hope to reply to each of his arguments. To get this matter into better perspective let us get a bird's-eye view of the activities of the Post Office. The information I am about to quote is taken from the same annual report as that from which **Senator Willesee** quoted. The Post Office has assets of a total value of £444,000,000. It employs a staff of 85,920. There are 9,800 full-time post offices in Australia. The postal articles that go into and come out of the Post Office each year total no less than 2,000,000,000. Local telephone calls number 1,380,000,000 each year, trunk line calls 123,500,000 and telegrams 22,500,000. Those figures are really gigantic. The earnings of the Post Office amount to £105,300,000 and the profit, after charging interest of £812,730, was £6,000,000 last year. It is commonly said that the Post Office is the largest business in Australia. I do not know whether that is true or not, but the figures that I have mentioned are entitled to be looked at with respect by those of us who are taking part in this debate. I think it is only reasonable to strike the note early in the piece, that the 86,000 employees of the Post Office would certainly expect honorable senators on either side of the Senate who take part in this debate to express a view as to whether those employees are efficiently carrying out the jobs entrusted to them. The Opposition claims that there was no justification for increasing Post Office charges by £16,000.000 a year because the Post Office earned £6,000,000 profit last year. That is a completely fallacious argument and a short-sighted approach to the problem. We need to contrast the profit of £6,000,000 last year with the investment in fixed assets which, as stated in the annual report, are valued at no less than £444,000,000. The £6,000,000 net profit earned by the Post Office last year represents a profit of only 1.4 per cent, on the £444,000,000 invested in the Post Office. It represents 5.7 per cent, on the £105,000,000 takings of the Post Office. It is only .6 per cent, on the gigantic figure of £969,000,000, which is shown in the statement of cash receipts and expenditure in the annual report of the Post Office. By no stretch of imagination could earnings of 1.4 per cent, on capital invested be called satisfactory. By no stretch of imagination could that be called a reasonable result, even if it is admitted, as everybody does admit, that the Post Office is not a commercial proposition or a business undertaking. The Post Office provides a community service for the community as a whole. To imagine that you could brush all these increased Post Office charges on one side merely because the Post Office earned £6,000,000 net profit last year is a completely unreal approach to this problem. What the Opposition is doing in effect, when we consider this adjournment motion in its proper perspective, is moving a vote of no confidence in the staff of the Post Office. The Opposition is saying in effect that the Post Office staff cannot run the Post Office efficiently. The simple truth is that the Post Office does not show a reasonable return to its proprietors - the taxpayers of Australia - and that is the position which the Government is aiming to correct. The Post Office last increased its charges back in 1956. **Senator Willesee** objects to this comparison but I do not see any reason why he should. I have figures showing a comparison of the increases, and I have further figures showing the increases in Post Office charges and their relationship to the basic wage, going back over a long period of years. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- What has that to do with it? {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- All I say is that it is completely fantastic for you to say that the Post Office is a profitable concern, and that the Government had no right to increase postal rates because the Post Office made a profit of £6,000,000 last year. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- Of course! {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER: -- I ask the honorable senator to let me make my speech in my own way. I have only a short time left in which to complete it, and I wish to quote many more facts and figures that will make him far more uncomfortable than he is at present. If, in 1959, postal charges had been increased at the same rate as the basic wage was increased, the letter rate would now be 7d. instead of 5d., the local telephone call charge would be 4id. as against 4d., and the charge for a trunk line call between Melbourne and Perth would be 44s. 3d. instead of the present charge of 15s. The rental charge for a telephone connexion to a small country exchange would be £10 10s. as against the present charge of £6, and in Sydney and Melbourne the charge would be about £19 instead of about £17. I think we have to clear our thoughts upon this. As I have said and acknowledged, the Post Office gives a community service. I doubt whether any of us would want to see it making a commercial profit, but it is quite wrong to fail to try to separate users of Post Office services from the taxpayers. It is quite nonsensical to say that all these postal services are to be provided by the taxpayer, without relation to reasonable charges to the people who use these services. Let me put this to you. At the present time - this is one of the reasons why we have moved in to try to put these Post Office charges on a better basis - we have the ludicrous position that the total cost of providing a new subscriber with a telephone and increasing progressively the capacity of the network to enable him to speak on the telephone - providing all the equipment connected with telephones - is about £400. That is the approximate cost of each new telephone installation at the present time, but the charge to the subscriber is only £10. Are we to continue upon a basis like that, particularly in the face of the further figures that I will mention? It has been said that this is a profiteering or an inflationary sort of thing, which has been done only to relieve taxation. But what is the position? What is the comparison between these charges in Australia and charges overseas? I have told you that the cost of installing a telephone is about £400 but that we make a charge of only £10. I shall compare the charges in Great Britain with those in Australia, in terms of Australian currency. In Great Britain, there is a flat rate rental of £15 for a resident telephone service and of £17 10s. for a business service, anywhere in Great Britain. The charge for a local call is 3id. In Sydney and Melbourne, the charges are £14 for a resident service and £17 5s. for a business service. So the increased charges are still below those in Great Britain. The annual charge for a country telephone i-> Australia is £6 for a resident service and £7 for a business service. These amounts are only 40 per cent, of the charges for similar services in Great Britain. In other words, a country telephone subscriber in Great Britain pays an annual rental *2i* times as great as that payable in Australia, despite the long distances that have to be covered in this country. A great song and dance is made about these Post Office charges being most inflationary, most onerous and most unfair, but when you come to tease them out, the net result is that, spread over the community, they cost the community an average of only 8d. a head weekly. In truth, the personal responsibility is much less than 8d. a head, because a substantial proportion of the increased charges is taken up by business concerns, which make such great use of postal facilities. The Opposition claims that there is no justification for increasing postal charges. That allegation is made, in my opinion, with a complete lack of perspective, with a complete lack of knowledge of the task that confronts the Post Office, with a complete lack of knowledge of the manner in which the Government has supported the Post Office and of the manner in which the Government has progressively provided funds to enable the Post Office to be brought up to date and to operate efficiently. There has been a progressive policy for the management of the Post Office. The present Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** is entitled to credit for the manner in which he has controlled the destinies of the Post Office and obtained the substantial volume of funds that has been made available for its development. Without a doubt, in the long line of people who have worthily held the position of Postmaster-General, **Mr. Davidson** stands out for the manner in which he has discharged his ministerial responsibilities. Honorable senators opposite have talked in terms of the Post Office earning a net profit of £6,000,000. Let me give some other figures to show the amounts of money which the Government has provided from taxation year after year in order to improve the facilities of the Post Office so that it would be the efficient organization that it is and has been, and as we want to see it continue to be, for the benefit of the people of Australia. The Government provided, in 1954-55, £27,300,000; in 1955- 56, £28,700,000; in 1956-57, £30,700,000; in 1957-58, £34,300,000; in 1958-59. £36,300,000; and in 1959-60, the estimated amount to be provided was £39,400,000. Tn those circumstances, I say that it is arrant nonsense for the Opposition to say that the only reason the Post Office charges were increased was so that we should be able to make taxation reductions. Is it reasonable to believe that it is a satisfactory basis of operation year after year to have to provide from taxation £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 for the development of the Post Office, in order to enable it to give the services that it is required to give to the community? There is justification alone in that set of figures for what the Government has done. Let us look at this matter in terms of cold, hard cash. That is the language that John Citizen understands. That is the language that you and I understand, because you and I have to provide these funds. They do not come down like manna from heaven. They have to be provided by taxation, in the world in which we live. The position at about this time last year, before going into our budget arrangements, was that we would have to obtain from the taxpayers of Australia for the purposes of the Post Office an amount of £39,400,000 for the next financial year. In those circumstances were we not justified in increasing postal charges, which will yield £10,000,000 this year and £16,000,000 in a full year? I point out that despite the increases, the taxpayer still has to find £30,000,000 a year so that the employees of the Post Office may have the fair go to which they are entitled, and so that the people of Australia may obtain from the Post Office the efficient service to which they are entitled. Last year, the Post Office earned a net profit of £6,000,000. The Post Office is a developing business with increasing demands for capital. Despite the fact that a profit of £6,000,000 was earned last year, it will be necessary to provide a further £34,000.000 for the Post Office for new buildings, plant and equipment in order that its efficiency may not be impaired. It is nonsensical for **Senator Willesee** to say that charges have been increased so that taxes may be reduced. That is not even a good political argument. Such a statement indicates muddled thinking' - inability to think things out logically. Following **Senator Willesee's** statement through to its logical conclusion, if we are not prepared to allow government undertakings to stand on their own feet to some extent, the Opposition's policy would mean that we abandon all effort to make any reasonable charge for services rendered and throw away all thoughts of keeping taxes as low as possible. In effect the Opposition says that the Government can take what it likes in taxes, and that we should not worry whether the money is spent wisely, because the Lord will provide more taxpayers to be mulcted next year for another harvest. I belong to the school of thought that is thankful for small mercies where tax reductions are concerned. 1 do not think that 1 am the only one holding that view. I think the majority of people expect to pay a reasonable fee for government services, and 1 do not think that anybody could say that the increased postal charges are doing any more than providing the Post Office with a reasonable return for the services that it renders. I can never follow the argument of honorable senators opposite, which appears to be that when you raise money by taxation you are behaving immorally if you expect a reasonable return on that money, either in the way of interest or as reasonable charges for services rendered. It is fallacious to attempt to differentiate between work that is financed by money from loans, on which interest is payable, and work that is financed from money raised by taxes. Surely the line of demarcation is not the way in which the money is raised. The test should be whether you are getting efficient service for the money that you spend. If you adopt any other principle you reach a situation where a government could dangerously and foolishly drift into a position where it says that if a taxpayer finds the money, the government has no responsibility to obtain a reasonable return on that money. It follows automatically that the government has no responsibility to see that the money is spent efficiently or that the business receiving the money is conducted efficiently. **Senator Willesee** said that we were not meeting requirements. I do not think honorable senators opposite appreciate the extent to which the Post Office has grown as a result of development in Australia, as a result of higher living standards and as a result of the improved services that it is rendering. Every large institution must face criticism. Honorable senators opposite do not appreciate sufficiently the great steps forward in administration taken by the Post Office. Postal business has increased by 22 per cent, and telephone business by 35 per cent., yet the staff handling that increased postal business has increased by only 12 per cent, and the staff handling the increased telephone business has increased by only 14 per cent. The Opposition would deny these people money to develop their business. These people should be allowed a reasonable return for the work they are doing. They should not be denied capital and facilities for expansion. No business can continue unless it is supported with adequate capital, and over the years we have provided the Post Office with adequate capital. I hope that we will continue to provide the necessary capital for Post Office expansion. I hope that in the future we will continue to put life and vigour into the Post Office by ensuring that it obtains a reasonable return for the services that it renders to its customers. Last year, the number of letters and parcels carried by the Post Office increased by 42 per cent., the number of local telephone calls increased by 67 per cent, and trunk-line calls increased by 90 per cent, when compared with 1948-49. That increased business was handled with an increase in staff of only 31 per cent. I conclude on this note. The Post Office is a great Australian institution. Nobody likes the task of increasing postal charges or, for that matter, any other charges, but I think that the facts and the figures that I have given show that the return to the Post Office is grossly inadequate compared with the amount that the taxpayer has invested in it. It is essential that the taxpayer should continue to invest large amounts of money in the Post Office so that it will become increasingly efficient. It is only reasonable that to some extent a line of demarcation should be drawn between the taxpayer and the user of the Post Office. The taxpayer should not be asked to provide all that is required by the Post Office without an assurance that the user of the Post Office will pay a reasonable amount for the services that he receives. It would be inequitable to continue to ask the taxpayer to find £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 each year for the Post Office. The increased postal charges will provide a total of £16,000,000 in a full year - £10,000,000 this year - and that is a reasonable approach to what is a big national problem. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP .- In supporting the motion before the Senate, I think it is not out of place to remind nonable senators that during the general election campaign in 1949, the present Governmentparties promised, if elected, to put value back into the £1. As we know, since 1949 value has been taken out of the £ I . The purchasing power of the £1 to-day is lower than ever it was before. I remind honorable senators of that fact because I intend to show that, first, the increased postal charges that we are discussing are not justified and, secondly, that they are the result of fraudulent inflation of the currency. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- You increased postal charges by 16 per cent, in 1949. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- I did not increase them. When we speak of increased costs we are speaking in half-truths. There was never a time, in the history of the western world, when real costs were lower or when inflated costs were higher than they are to-day. Costs can be assessed in two categories - in terms of labour time and in terms of gold. Costs in terms of labour time are a diminishing factor to-day, and so are costs in terms of gold; yet, costs in terms of inflated currency are an increasing factor. 1 am not the only one who says that that is so. 1 have in mind that a banking journal in England, I think in September, 1940, published the statement that, in effect, revenue should not be raised by means of taxes in the ordinary way, but that the banks, in collaboration with the Government, should print the notes that were necessary. It was said that that could be done at negligible cost. That has been done, with the result that the incomes of those in the higher income brackets were never greater, while the purchasing power of those on wages, or in receipt of small salaries, pensions and other fixed incomes, was never lower. That may seem almost incredible, but if honorable senators examine the figures, starting with those of the year 1914, when inflation started, instead of the years mentioned by **Senator Willesee,** they will see that the figures represent so much mathematical trickery to deceive people who do not know any better. The figures quoted by **Senator Spooner** could mislead people who did not know any better. Technically, there is a difference between the mathematical and the geometrical methods of approaching this question. The increased postal charges amount to both direct and indirect tax which is being paid mainly by wage-earners and others in receipt of small incomes, such as pensions. The tax is paid directly by them when they purchase stamps, use a telephone or send a telegram, and indirectly when postal and telephone costs incurred by business firms are passed on, thereby increasing the cost of living. We do not imagine for a moment that business firms will have to pay the increased charges or shoulder the burden of them. Instead, they will pass on the increase, because they are in a position to do so. The recipients of wages, salaries, superannuation and other forms of pension are not in such a fortunate position. Inflation may be described as an indirect and corrupt method of taxation by means of which goods and services, costing millions of pounds, are being paid for in intrinsically worthless pieces of paper. In my opinion, all government instrumentalities, such as the Post Office, should be financed on the basis of their actual costs, the honest or real costs of the materials they use and the services they render. There is no doubt that it is both politically and economically possible to do that. Departments should not be used by governments as tax-collecting instrumentalities, in the interests of wealthy taxpayers and at the expense of taxpayers who have no other source of income than wages, small salaries, pensions and other forms of fixed income. Speaking of wages, the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson),** in attempting to justify the increased postal charges, referred to an increase in 1959 of 15s. a week in the basic wage. I point out that that was only an apparent, not an actual, increase. The £1 sterling to-day is worth about 4s., compared with the £1 sterling in 1914. That is an official estimate supplied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in England, on 1st April, 1957. He indicated a depreciation of 78 per cent, in the value of the £1, but since then there has been further depreciation. If we allow for the adverse exchange rate and deduct 25 per cent, of 4s., we see that the Australian £1 to-day is worth only 3s., compared with 4s. in 1914. Assuming that the basic wage is approximately £14 at present, if we multiply 3s. by 14, we arrive at an amount of £2 2s., which is the real value of the basic wage to-day; so that, in terms of gold, or in terms of pounds worth 20s., we are back to the values of 1914. For the Post Office, as for every other branch of industry, labour time is a diminishing factor in costs. Real postal charges were never lower, but inflated postal charges were never higher. That is the result of the trick that is being played for all it is worth by so-called mathematical experts who can prove almost anything by figures, provided they are allowed to alter the basis on which they work. All government departments should be run according to their actual costs. If there are profits, such as the £6,000,000 profit made by the Post Office last year, costs should be reduced. But why should a government department make a profit at the expense of the people? What is the purpose of making a profit such as this? Just as **Senator Willesee** has said, the profit is made in the interests of wealthy taxpayers, because to the extent that you can reduce the purchasing power of small income-earners, of pensioners and others, then to that extent you automatically increase the purchasing power of wealthy taxpayers. I have spoken to many responsible officers of the Postmaster-General's Department about this matter, and I have not met one who has been in favour of the increases. The department, in my opinion, is an efficient one. Its officers have very sound ideas, and they are just as capable as - and in many cases more capable than - members of this Senate of assessing the necessity or desirability of these increases. These men have grown up with their jobs, and they know more about them than any politician. I have spoken to many of them, and I have not found one who has attempted to justify the increases. One of these officers, who occupies one of the highest positions in the Post Office, said to me, " I would not have a bar of it at any price ". When I hear practical men expressing opinions of this kind. I am convinced that the charges have been introduced mainly in the interests of big financial concerns and monopolies. To see the results of the Government's financial policies one need only look around at the palatial office buildings being erected by the various banks, some of them next door to one another. These buildings can be constructed only out of profits. In every city of the Commonwealth we can see palatial offices, residences and hotels that have been made possible only by the inflation of the currency. The increases of postal charges amount to obtaining money by false pretences. Having in mind the mechanization that has been introduced into all classes of industry, including the Post Office, the imposition of these charges, in excess of what is required to meet actual or real costs, amounts to regulated robbery and established theft in the interests of wealthy taxpayers. If one studies this question as carefully and as critically as one can it will be found that my statement is not an exaggeration. When I was Minister for Aircraft Production I had the opportunity, under the national security legislation, of examining the books of various contractors who, it was thought, were overcharging the Government. In one department alone we recovered nearly £2,000,000. This was possible mainly as a result of investigations made by experts in the Treasury. One of these men, who died quite recently, was **Mr. Harris.** He was a very capable man. Each month I was supplied with information showing how contractors had deliberately overcharged the Government and the people. Our attitude was - restitution or prosecution. In most cases we had restitution. Similar practices are being adopted to-day, but the position is not being policed as it was during the war. Private enterprise is indulging in these practices, with the condonation of the Government, which **Senator Spooner** would have us believe is doing a magnificent job. The honorable senator speaks of taxation. We do not deny the value of taxation. I believe that taxation is at the very basis of the machinery of government, but taxation by inflating the currency is merely a colossal fraud perpetrated upon the people. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood).** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
New South Wales -- I rise to oppose the motion made by **Senator Willesee** on behalf of the Opposition. I realize that in bringing forward this motion the honorable senator was merely carrying out bis duties as a member of the Opposition. The members of the Opposition no doubt hope to strengthen their position, which has been so weak for such a long time. Perhaps they are spurred on by the wishful thought that under their new leader they may fight their way back to the position they held a decade ago. I believe another reason for bringing forward this motion was the sound beating that the Australian Labour Party look in the recent La Trobe be-election, when the right-wing, moderate anti-Communist candidate of the Democratic Labour Party made significant gains. I take this opportunity of congratulating the leader of that party, **Senator Cole,** and the deputy leader, **Senator McManus,** on the success of their party in the recent byelection in La Trobe. 1 was, to be quite frank, one of those who were not very happy about the increases of postal charges. When speaking in this chamber during the debate on the legislation, I said that while I was not happy about the increases, it was reasonable, if we were to continue to enjoy the expansion of postal and telephone facilities that had been going on for ten years, to expect the users of these facilities to accept some of the financial burden resultant upon this expansion. 1 believe that it may have been a very fortunate circumstance, in one sense, that the increases were imposed when they were. Had they not been imposed at that time, we would probably have had to take into account, when considering budget provisions for this year, the increased costs brought about by the recent margins decision, in which case the increases in charges would probably have been much greater than the 16 per cent, increases imposed last year. While we supported the increases that were made after the introduction of the last Budget we will not now support any further increases. We have heard a good deal about the 16 per cent, increase. I should like to refer now to a statement made in 1940 by the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** when speaking at that time on behalf of the Postmaster-General - >The combined additional revenue which it is expected will be received from the revised postal, telephone and telegraph charges is in the order of £5,500,000 yearly representing a net increase of about 16 per cent, in the total earnings of the department. It will be agreed that this is a moderate increase. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator Sheehan: -- When did he say that? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR: -- He said that in 1940. If an increase of 16 per cent, was moderate then, why is the proposed increase not moderate to-day? According to the Opposition, what was sauce for the goose then is not sauce for the gander to-day. Let me take the comparison a little further: In 1947-48, under a Labour government, I understand the profits were approximately £14,000,000. No doubt the Labour Government thought that a wonderful achievement and took a great deal of credit for it. But now, when one branch of the department makes a modest profit of approximately £6,000,000 the Opposition is most vocal in criticizing the charges that made this moderate profit possible. I suggest that honorable senators opposite are adopting an illogical attitude. I come now to the cost of installing telephones. In many cases it is about £300 for each telephone installed. No doubt, as **Senator Spooner** explained a little while ago, it is sometimes slightly higher. This £300 includes £70 for the equipment in the telephone exchange, £20 for the telephone instrument, wiring within the subscriber's premises, and connexion to the street cable or aerial wire route, £195 for cables, conduits and/or aerial wires to and from the exchange, including junction cables for inter-connexion between exchanges in the same network, and £15 for other costs principally for buildings to house the equipment. Despite these higher costs, the department has not been able to keep pace with the demand for telephones. In the eight months ended March this year, 112,750 new telephones were installed as compared with 97,700 for the previous twelve months. Now let us consider the amounts drawn from Consolidated Revenue for the PostmasterGeneral's Department during the last five years. In 1954-55, that department received £27,300,000. In 1955-56, the amount was £28,700,000. In 1956-57, it was £30,700,000. In 1957-58 it was £34,300,000, and in 1958-59, it was £36,300,000. In the light of those figures, surely it is not unreasonable to suggest once again that the user of the facilities provided by the Postmaster-General's Department should bear some of the cost of further expansion. In many cases, there had been no increase in charges since 1951 despite the fact that the department's costs had increased by something like £30,000,000 a year. Had these charges been increased at a rate comparable with the increase in the basic wage, the charge for a letter to-day would be 7d. instead of 5d., while that for a local telephone call would be 4id. instead of 4d. Further, a trunk-line call from Melbourne to Perth would cost 42s. 3d. instead of 15s. and the rental for a telephone would be £10 10s. instead of £6 6s. where phones are connected to small exchanges, lt cannot be argued, therefore, that the recent increases were out of all proportion to other increases which the community has been forced to bear. Naturally, we do not like making these increases, but we must take this step. We cannot have expansion unless we are prepared to pay for it. I am in entire agreement with the proposed expansion because it does mean increased benefits to the residents of outback centres. The new airmail arrangements are particularly pleasing to me. When speaking to the proposed charges on 23rd September last year, **Senator Toohey** referred to a committee which the Postmaster-General's Department proposed to set up. He said that it would be most unlikely that anything would be done about setting up this committee for at least another twelve months. But that committee was set up, and it comprised **Sir Alexander** Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission; **Mr. G.** Packer, a member of the Australian National Airlines Commission, and of the Immigration Planning Committee, and a business consultant to the Public Service Board; **Mr. L.** B. Evans, a member of the business board of the Defence Department; **Mr. Nimmo** from the Treasury; and **Mr. E.** Easton, Assistant Director-General of Finance in the Postmaster-General's Department. This committee has been working most assiduously and expects to submit a report towards the end of April. So much for the Opposition's derogatory remarks concerning the setting up of a committee! I think we are all agreed that such a committee was necessary, and I should like to see similar committees established in connexion with many other government departments, lt will be remembered that such a course was recommended by the former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Professor Bland. Costs in Australia compare more than favorably with those of other countries, and we should feel a good deal of satisfaction at this fact, especially when we take into consideration the vast areas in Australia that must be serviced. Honorable senators know only too well that there are thousands of miles of sparsely populated country which must be serviced, and in many cases the charges made for services are not sufficient to reimburse the PostmasterGeneral's Department for the cost involved. Another factor worthy of mention is that of the £34,000,000 spent on equipment and material, £30,000,000 represented purchases of Australian goods. Honorable senators must realize how much that means in employment of Australians in the factories producing that equipment and materials. There have been some complaints about the conversion from the two-letter to the six-figure dialling system. That is all part of the new scheme which seeks to enable people all over the Commonwealth to call subscribers as individuals. I had hoped to refer to **Senator Cameron's** remarks, but, with all due respect to him, I can find nothing requiring reply. He seemed to be so wide of the mark that I think it better not to refer to what he said but to deal with other things. In Sydney a few weeks ago, we saw the beginning of the laying of a coaxial cable, between Sydney and Melbourne. This is another important undertaking by the Postmaster-General's Department. Again, the introduction of the extended local service area scheme - known as Elsa - has been of particular interest to country residents. In a nutshell, this means that the number of subscribers who may make what are termed local calls will be between eight and ten times greater than under the old scheme. That will bring untold benefit to the people of the outback. This is all part of the scheme for new rural automatic exchanges, the advantages of which are set out clearly in a pamphlet published by the Postmaster-General's Department. I know that in all cases higher rentals have been charged. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria **.- Senator McKellar's** speech was of such a nature that 1 had to look at the records of the Senate to find what party he was supposed to be representing here. I understand that he is supposed to be representing the Australian Country Party. During my service as a senator 1 have heard the PostmasterGeneral's Department discussed on many occasions, and I tell the honorable senator that if some of those persons who represented the Australian Country Party in the Senate only a few years ago were to hear him extolling what has been done by this Government, they would disown him as a representative of that party. It has always been the desire of the Australian Country Party to retain control of the Post Office. The former leader of that party, **Sir Arthur** Fadden, was, as Treasurer, able to resist the methods of finance of the Liberal Party and to keep its hands off the Post Office, because it was recognized that the Post Office was rendering a service unique in the history and economy of this country, a service that was spread into the far-flung areas where the population was sparse and it was necessary to provide some amenities for the people. That has been the role of the Post Office over the years. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- And it still is. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- It will be very short-lived if the methods being adopted at the moment are allowed to continue. Thai role will be very short-lived if alleged members of the Australian Country Party, either here or in another place, allow the Post Office to be raided in the manner in which it has been raided by representatives of the financial system espoused by the Liberal Party. As **Senator Spooner** rightly said, the Post Office is a very efficient organization. It has some vast assets. How have those assets been built up? They were built up by the people who paid money, by way of taxation, into Consolidated Revenue. Now, years afterwards, we are told that interest is to be charged on that money. Who provided the capital to build the Post Office? Did somebody lend money to the Treasury for that purpose? The people provided that money in taxes. Now, under the Liberal Party system of finance, those people who built the Post Office are to be charged interest on their own money. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- That decision has not been reached. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- Of course it has been reached. Action has only been deferred for a few weeks. That the decision has been reached is shown by the arguments put forward by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in his Budget speech, and by the arguments that have been adduced during this debate. What did **Senator Spooner** say in regard to financing the Post Office? We are now expected to pay interest on the capital invested in the Post Office, which is the people's money. I want to get the Australian Country Party to appreciate this. The increased charges will drag £16,000,000 more out of the people who are using the Post Office, which made a profit of £6,000,000 last year. When we returned to Canberra yesterday, we found in our lockers a very comprehensive document in which the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** acclaimed the greatrecord of progress of the Post Office. It was stated that last year there was a commercial profit and loss surplus of £6,043,434, which was an increase of £2,033,254 on the previous year, and that the turnover was £969,000,000, which was an increase of £41,000,000 and a record. So it would appear that the Post Office made a profit not only last year but also the previous year. As a matter of fact, over the years it has made substantial profits. In the last seventeen years it has made over £70,000,000. What would honorable senators say, if they were shareholders in a company that made such profits and the board of directors made a call on them? Is that not what is being done? This is a profit-making institution, the shareholders in which are the people of Australia, who found the money to establish it. They continue to find the funds to keep it going, but they are now being asked to meet a further call in the form of increased charges. Why? What would happen to company directors who adopted that course? At the first meeting of shareholders they would be ousted very quickly, unless they had been able to fix up the proxies. That is what will happen to this Government. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- Do you think shareholders get money for nothing? {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- The shareholders of the Post Office are ourselves, who contribute in taxes. There are no bondholders who invest money for interest. The money has been raised freely by the Government. Members of the Australian Country Party should understand that paying interest on our own money is a Liberal Party method of finance. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- In the few minutes left to me I should like to recapitulate briefly. Prior to the suspension I mentioned that the Post Office had rendered wonderful service to the community and had accumulated assets over the years almost exclusively through the raising of taxes. I stated that the Government was now asking the users of Post Office services to come to its assistance to the extent of £16,000,000, notwithstanding that last year the Post Office had made a profit of £6,000,000, that in the previous year it had made a profit of £2,000,000, and that over the past seventeen years it had made a total profit of £70,000,000. That was a wonderful achievement on the part of the Post Office and it demonstrates that the proposal to increase the postal charges is entirely unwarranted. During the course of **Senator Cameron's** speech some one interjected and said that postal charges had been increased by a Labour government during its period of office. That is true. One honorable senator said that we had increased charges in 1940. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- In 1949. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- There was an increase earlier than 1949. By legislation the Labour Government confirmed the charges that had been levied during the war-time. Later, Labour again increased charges, but in the period before that increase the Post Office had not made the surpluses that it has made during the period this Government has been in office. Everything that the Government is doing is imposing some extra levy upon the people. Take the Elsa system about which so much has been said. Pamphlets have been distributed pointing out to telephone subscribers that they are now going to be linked with a wider area and that the calls made in this wider area will be charged at the local call rate of 4d. instead of at the trunk line rate. I wonder if the subscribers realize that since October, 1959, the rentals on their telephones have been increased! They were increased by £1 in October, despite the £6,000,000 profit made by the department, and from 1st May they will be increased by another £1 a year. What benefit will accrue to the ordinary citizen of a town who uses a telephone mostly to call the local tradesmen or friends? As **Senator Willesee** suggested in his opening remarks the increase in charges has been made to offset the income tax rebate that was given to the big people - those on high incomes. This new system, Elsa, is again something that will benefit big business. Undoubtedly city merchants and others who have vast trading interests will gain as a result of Elsa, but to the pensioner and those on modest incomes it represents an additional charge. Trunk line calls costing 6d., 9d., and ls. are to be abolished; there will be nothing under ls. 4d. It reminds one of the motto of the Coles chain stores when they first commenced - " Nothing over 2s. 6d.". In the trunk line field in a year or so it will be a case of " Nothing under 2s. 6d.". We have been told that the Government has appointed a committee to examine Post Office charges, but of course the Government has told the committee what finding it wants. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP j - In this discussion there are two points of view, but only one problem. The problem is: Who shall pay for Post Office services? The Government says that Post Office services should be paid for by those who use them, with a degree of assistance from the taxpayers. The Opposition also says that Post Office services should be paid for by the users, with a degree of assistance from the taxpayers. One might well ask: " What are we arguing about? " We are arguing about the degree of assistance that should be given to the users of these services out of the pockets of the taxpayers. That is the point at issue. We on this side of the Senate feel that those who use the services of the Post Office should contribute fairly towards those services. From what I have heard of this debate the Opposition apparently thinks that the users of telephones should be subsidized to a far greater degree by the taxpayers of Australia. {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- The little people. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- By the little people - all those who pay taxes and there are 4,000,000 of them. The Opposition is asking that the taxpayers be called upon to subsidize the users of postal and telephone services by means of increased taxes. That is the proposal that has been posed to the Senate to-day. The Government this year was faced with a request from the Post Office for a sum of £40,000,000 to develop and increase its services. The Government naturally asked: From where is this £40,000,000 to come? In the final analysis the Government arrived at the decision that in this year £10,000,000 of it should come from those who use the services and £30,000,000 should come from the pockets of the taxpayers. That is the decision the Government, made. What is Labour's alternative? If £40,000,000 is to be used for the development of this great institution which renders magnificent service to the public, Labour's alternative proposal can only be that all this money should come from the pockets of the taxpayers. There are only two sources from which it can come, so, in effect, Labour is saying that its policy is to increase taxation. It suggests that taxation should be increased to keep down the cost of stamps, telephones and telegrams. It is upon that point that the Government and the Opposition completely disagree. The Government believes that if, this year, the taxpayers - 4,000,000 of them - are to be asked to contribute £30,000,000 towards the development of the Post Office, then it is a fair, just and equitable proposal to ask those who use the services to produce the other £10,000,000. The simple proposal that we have put to the people in the Budget is that the users of the postal services should provide an extra £10,000,000 this year and £16,000,000 in a full year or a normal year. The other point on which we disagree - it has been made frequently by speakers on the other side in this debate - is that because the commercial accounts of the Post Office this year show a surplus of revenue over operating costs amounting to £6,000,000, we should not in any way increase the revenue of the Post Office. No thinking person that I have spoken to considers the commercial accounts, as they are kept at present, to be a profit and loss account of the Post Office. Millions of pounds have been poured into this institution - and rightly so - to bring it up to date, to keep it abreast of the times and to enable it to render better service to the people of Australia. Not one penny of interest has ever been charged against the Post Office in respect of that capital amount. If we were to charge interest - which is a proper charge against any business undertaking of the Government - the commercial accounts of the Post Office would show a huge loss. Honorable senators on the other side of the chamber have said that a great deal of this money has been raised from the taxpayers by way of taxes and that the Government is now asking them to pay interest on the money so raised. It is an impossibility to identify tha taxpayer and the user of the- Post Office as one and the same person. It is ridiculous to say that that can be done. The contention will not stand examination, because the taxpayers are not the only users of the Post Office. Hosts of peoplewho use tha facilities of the Post Office are not taxpayers. What would happen to this money that we raise by taxation and use in thedevelopment of the Post Office if we did not spend it on the Post Office? We would be able to use it to pay off the loans that we have raised from the people of Australia, on which we are paying 5 per cent., 5i per cent, and *5i* per cent, interest. Wewould be able to reduce those loans. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'Flaherty: -- But the Government would not do so. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The honorable senator has no right to say that, because the redemptions of public loans by this Government have been greater than those- by any other government in the history of Australia. We have reduced the public debt to a greater degree than any other government has ever attempted to do. If you want the figures, look at the Commonwealth national debt to-day. The honorable senator should not say that we would not redeem public loans. 1 am using a perfectly legitimate argument when I say that if we raised £30,000,000 by taxation for expenditure on the Post Office but did not spend it on the Post Office, we could repay £30,000,000 of our loans, on which the taxpayers of Australia are paying 5i per cent, interest or more. So interest is a right and proper charge on the Post Office when the money is used for capital development. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- Would you use the profits to redeem the public debt? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- Personally, I do not think that the Post Office has made profit, because interest has never been charged on the money it has used for capital development. I would use the surplus on the working account - the difference between actual outgoings and income - for the development of the Post Office. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator Cameron: -- I should say- {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- You should not interrupt. You were responsible for the greatest loss ever made by the Post Office. Don't advance your theories. Holy mackerel, when **Senator Cameron** was PostmasterGeneral, he produced the greatest loss that we have ever seen. Let him keep his 1846 theories to himself; they are not welcome in 1960. He is 100 years behind the times, in my opinion. I want to talk for a moment or two about the development of the Post Office. I listened with great interest to those who mentioned the new system which will come into operation on 1st May - the system known as Elsa. The only complaint 1 have heard about Elsa is that she has not quite enough middle-age spread. She does not cover some districts. The introduction of this system will be of tremendous assistance to numbers of people living in areas around main centres in country districts, because they will be able to ring up people in those centres for a local call charge. At present they have to pay a trunk-line call fee, but after 1st May they will be able to speak for an unlimited time on a local call. That will be of tremendous help to people in districts with a great community of interest. That is the aim of the Post Office. The first step in the process is to give to people in districts with a community of interest the ability to ring up one another on a 4d. call, with no time limit. The Post Office has a second step in mind. 1 think that what it is planning is an excellent thing. The people of Australia should realize the importance of the plans that the men in the Post Office are preparing. They are planning to provide for the needs of a greater community - the Australian community. Their aim is that a person anywhere in Australia will be able to dial directly a number in an exchange in, say, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart or Perth. This will bring about a greater community of interest in Australia as a whole, because when people in one city can dial directly to an exchange in another city, they will be, so to speak, part and parcel of that other city. All these things call for tremendous expenditure on most intricate machinery. I have been through many post offices, and I have never ceased to marvel at how the mechanics and engineers know where lines are going and what they mean. Any one who wants an interesting experience should go underground in a telephone exchange and see the lines there. The technicians know where all the lines go, and they are able to identify immediately any line that needs attention and to repair it. That is a matter of constant amazement to me. But, as I have said, these things cost a tremendous amount of money, and when £40,000,000 was required for the development of the Post Office, we did not think it was unfair, but thought it reasonable and proper, to make the users of the Post Office services pay £10,000,000 of the £40,000,000 required, the taxpayers of Australia being required to subsidize the services to the extent of a further £30,000,000. Reference has been made during this debate to the cost of telephones in Australia. I should like to compare the cost of a telephone in Sydney with the cost of a telephone in New York. Those are two big cities and- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator SANDFORD:
Victoria -- **Mr. Deputy President,** I wholeheartedly support the motion submitted on behalf of the Australian Labour Party by **Senator Willesee.** Since I have been in this Senate I have never heard more pitiful utterances than I have heard to-day from Ministers and their supporters in replying to the charges levelled from this side of the chamber. Neither the Leader of the Government **(Senator Spooner)** nor his supporting speakers, including **Senator Henty,** who has just resumed his seat, dealt with the basic problem with which we are concerned at the present time, namely, the extra postal charges being imposed on the people of Australia. **Senator Henty** did not get down to tin-tacks at all. He concluded his remarks with a eulogy of the postal staff. We all agree that the postal staff is doing a grand job. Nobody is casting reflections on them. **Senator Henty** asked who shall pay for postal services. He said that those who use the postal services should pay fairly, but he did not attempt to justify the making of an extra £16,000,000 in a full year and returning that amount to Consolidated Revenue, only to be lent again at interest. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- You must have been asleep, as usual, because I dealt with that aspect. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator SANDFORD: -- **Senator Henty** made no reference to that matter at all. In a recent television interview the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said - >Most of the cost- That is, the extra cost - will be carried by industry and commerce, but they will be able to deduct additional expenses for taxation purposes. That will soften the blow to that extent. I was amazed at the contribution of the Leader of the Government to this debate. He said that **Senator Willesee** lacked understanding and had resorted to abuse. I heard all of **Senator Willesee's** speech and I did not hear him resort to abuse. **Senator Spooner** said that this motion amounted to a no-confidence motion in the Post Office. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- That is right. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator SANDFORD: -- That is not our intention at all. **Senator Spooner** said that 86,000 people were employed by the postal authorities and that they would resent any reflection on their efficiency. Nobody on this side of the chamber is casting any reflection on the efficiency of postal employees. We think they are doing a marvellous job. What we are concerned about is Government policy in relation to postal finance. **Senator Spooner** compared present postal charges with those of years ago, but such a comparison is not relevant to the point at issue. We are concerned about the extra charges being imposed by the Government at present. **Senator Spooner** said that the cost of installing a telephone was about £400. I strongly contradict that statement. I suggest that the cost is nothing like £400. At present new telephone subscribers must pay an installation fee of £10. The rental charge for a private telephone in the metropolitan area is £14 12s. 6d. a year, and for a business telephone it is £17 7s. 6d. Rentals in country areas are £6 12s. 6d. for a private telephone and £7 12s. 6d. for a business telephone. Those are the lowest rental charges and most subscribers pay more than the minimum charge. Let me cite my own case as an example of what it costs to have a telephone. I have had a telephone for about 30 years, and over that period the average yearly rental has been at least £10. At present the rental is more than £20 a year. Over a period of 30 years, taking as an average a rental of £10 a year, I have paid £300 in telephone rental, which I suggest is quite out of proportion. In addition, I am now paying 4d. for ail local calls. The cost of telegrams has been increased. The result of the increased cost of telephones and telegrams is that for many people in the community those postal facilities are beyond their reach. How could a pensioner afford to send a telegram to-day? Pensioners cannot even afford 5d. postage for a letter. **Senator Spooner** compared postal charges in Australia with charges overseas. We are not concerned with charges overseas. We are concerned with the charges that are being levied in Australia. We do not know whether **Senator Spooner's** figures in respect of overseas postal facilities are correct. Probably he thinks figures cannot lie, but John Citizen knows that liars can figure to suit their own purposes. **Senator** Spooner has said that we should get down to hard cash as that is what John Citizen understands. John Citizen certainly does understand, and he does not appreciate having to pay these extortionate postal charges. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- He understood in La Trobe. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator SANDFORD: -- 1 will come te that. **Senator Spooner** did not utter one word in justification of the increases. **Senator McKellar** - I understand that he belongs to the Australian Country Party - made a pathetic contribution to the debate. He criticized the leadership of the Australian Labour Party. I do not know how that is relevant to postal charges. The honorable senator referred to the La Trobe by-election. I do not know what that has to do with increased postal charges. The honorable senator showered congratulations on a certain party for its improved voting figures in the La Trobe by-election, but he was not generous enough to congratulate the Australian Labour Party on increasing its vote in La Trobe by 8 per cent. **Senator McKellar** then said that our present leader, **Mr. Calwell,** was acting PostmasterGeneral in 1940. He must have meant what he said because he was asked by way of interjection what year had he referred to and he said 1940. But the Labour government was not in power in 1940. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKellar: -- Are you sure of that? {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator SANDFORD: -- I am positive. Having realized his mistake, **Senator McKellar** went on to mention the price of wire ropes. He must have thought he should hang himself. I do not know what the price of wire ropes has to do with postal charges. The honorable senator then referred to the amount of work done by the postal organization. We all agree that the postal authorities do a great amount of work, but we must realize that the motion now being debated is concerned mainly with the extra costs being imposed on the people of Australia for postal services. It should be recognized that an institution such as the Post Office can assist the development of the country - a contention that is supported by the report of a royal commission which sat from 1908 to 1910. The Public Accounts Committee recently cited some of the evidence given before that royal commission, which indicates that its findings are still relevant. The report of the commission stated - >As to the second proposition that the service- That is, the Postal Department - should be continued on a profit-making basis, the Department being treated as a commercial proposition, your Commissioners desire to dispose at once of the propriety of making the services profitmaking, since the Department, as well as performing functions of a postal character, provides facilities which tend to develop the country. In many instances continuous settlement depends upon constant and regular mail services. This fs notably the case in outlying parts of Western Australia and Queensland. It is apparent that the royal commission was of the opinion, as is the Australian Labour Party, that the Postal Department assists in the development of this country and should be used mainly as a developmental agency. The Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** in announcing the proposed increases, I think on 1st September last, stated that there had been a 20 per cent, increase in postal traffic during the last three years, but he did not say that, while the number of parcels carried had increased by 112,000,000, trunk-line telephone calls had increased by 7,000,000, and local telephone calls by 62,000,000, and that the profit for the year 1958-59 was £4,000,000, there had been an increase of only 1,811 in the staff of the Post Office. The ordinary letter rate and also the postcard rate have been increased to 5d., but the Government, through the Postal Department, is still offering concessions to big business. There are still postal concessions in respect of the carriage of commercial papers, samples and merchandise. The expected surplus, for the current year, on the carriage of firstclass mail is £3,500,000, but it is estimated that there will be a loss of a similar amount on the carriage of publications, periodicals and so on. It is interesting to note that the new rate for bulk postage did not begin to operate until March last. This was to allow publishers to adjust their rates. In other words, the operation of the rate was delayed to allow publishers time to pass on the increase. The people who use the general mail services, and also telephone and telegraph services, are not able to pass on the increased charges but have to accept them at once. I understand that the £10 fee for new telephone installations applies also in the case of transfer or removal of telephones. I remind honorable senators opposite that, although they speak of the need for more money for the Post Office to enable it to undertake developmental work, the Government, during its ten years of office has spent £111,000,000 on the Department of Civil Aviation and has had a return of less than £5,000,000. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pearson).** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s7 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales , - When I consider the proposal that we are discussing I am reminded of the very old expression, which I think is known to all honorable senators, that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. **Senator Willesee,** in his opening remarks, referred to a political stunt. I suggest that if ever there was a political stunt we have had one in regard to the motion before the Senate. I remind honorable senators opposite that the increased postal charges are no new thing. All the increases were projected in the Budget speech of the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in August of last year. The fact that the Opposition can find nothing better to debate than something which was the subject of budgetary legislation last year, indicates the low state to which the Opposition has sunk. lt will be remembered that, subsequent to the Budget speech, legislation was introduced in September last to give effect to the increases of postal charges which were proposed. The increases took effect from 1st October last, and here we are, debating the subject in April, 1960. I point out that when the surcharge on the carriage of mail by air was removed some time ago, honorable senators opposite did not then take the opportunity to debate this matter, perhaps because they knew that the removal of the surcharge was of great benefit to the community generally. The Opposition has waited all this time to debate charges which everybody has come to acknowledge. To support my contention that the motion before us is a political stunt, I remind honorable senators opposite that recently we debated the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech, during which they had an opportunity, if they wished to take it, to discuss the increased postal charges, but they failed to take the opportunity. Now, the matter is raised as one of urgency, although the relevant legislation was introduced in September last. It is obvious that the Opposition is tired and barren of ideas, since it can think of nothing better with which to flog the Government than something that happened nearly nine months ago. The Government has a responsibility to put the finances of the Post Office on a sound footing, and I suggest that that is exactly what it did when it introduced the proposals for the increased charges. The Post Office provides postal, telephonic and telegraphic services for 10,000,000 people, most of whom are concentrated in a few cities, while vast areas of Australia are very sparsely populated. That fact creates great problems for the Post Office. The continent of Australia has an area of approximately 3,000.000 square miles, and there are about 10,000 post offices. The Post Office employs 86,000 people, while its annual revenue is about £120,000,000. To make the picture clear, I point out that the Post Office provides services to the Commonwealth Savings Bank, the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department, for which it pays war pensions in certain cases. It receives instalments for the War Service Homes Division; it handles tax forms; it pays Army allotments; it distributes tax stamps, and it provides a service under the electoral laws. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 -- Nevertheless, it made £6,000,000 profit! {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- It is true that during this year the Post Office made a profit of £6,000,000, but I want to remind honorable senators that when the proposals were first brought forward, as late as last August, it was expected that the Post Office would, in this financial year, make a profit of £10,000,000. In all the intervening time the Opposition has made no attempt to debate the matter. We now have a political stunt indulged in by a tired Opposition in order to bring this matter forward, at this late stage, and use it for the purpose of initiating a debate. Until 1938 - and this is a point that has not previously been made - the Post Office paid interest on loan funds. It had borrowed, in fact, about £40,000,000, and interest is being paid by the Post Office at the present time on money that was so borrowed, or was provided by way of loan from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We hear much discussion about this theory that it is unprecedented for the Post Office to be required to pay interest. I do not actually advocate that the Post Office should do so, but I remind the Senate that the Post Office does in fact pay interest, and has been paying it for some time, on £40,000,000. This amount has been amortized, and I think the annual interest charge is now about £800,000. What must be kept in mind is that under constant pressure for expansion to meet the growing demands of a prosperous community, under the guiding hand of a Liberal-Country Party Government, we have to provide this year about £39,400,000 for Post Office capital expenditure. If this money comes from Consolidated Revenue the reaction will be felt in other works and undertakings that are, or could be, carried out by the Government. **Senator Henty** put the matter quite clearly and fairly when he said that the increased postal charges would provide this year about £10,000,000, which would help to meet a capital outlay of £39,400,000, and that in a full year about £16,000,000 would be raised by the increased charges to meet capital expenditure. It should be remembered that since 1951 the cost of administering the Post Office has increased by £30,000,000 per annum, while in that time revenue has increased by only £7,700,000. Until these increases were introduced in the last Budget, many postal charges had remained static from 1951. I wish now to refer to what we choose to call Elsa. For the benefit of those who may pardonably wonder what this means, let me explain that it is an abbreviation for extended local service areas. It was a quite extraordinary claim that we heard this evening from **Senator Sheehan,** that Elsa was not of much value, that it might be a doubtful blessing because certain people in country areas would have to pay up to £2 a year more in rent. Actually, the increases in rentals in country areas, as the result of the introduction of Elsa, will fluctuate between £1 and £2 5s. per annum, and between £5 and £10 in areas adjacent to the cities. But I want to remind **Senator Sheehan** and other honorable senators that it is for projects such as Elsa that these capital sums are required, and that of the trunk-line calls that are now being made, one-third will become local calls after the introduction of Elsa on Sunday next. {: .speaker-KAC} ##### Senator Vincent: -- And those calls will be correspondingly cheaper. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- Yes, they will be correspondingly cheaper, as I will show in a moment. Of the trunk line calls at present being made, about 40,000,000 per annum will become local calls as a result of this great technical improvement, which, together with other progressive moves in the Post Office, require large amounts of capital, which these extra charges will help to provide. The provision of extended local service areas simply means that a great number of calls which were previously made by trunk line, involving long waits in many cases, supervision by a monitor and subsequent checking to ensure that the calls had been made, will now be local calls. Let me point out what is happening in the Avalon-Palm Beach peninsula area in Sydney. This area has been in the trunk line zone. This has been most inconvenient. As a result of Elsa, local calls may now be made from this area to any point within the metropolitan area of Sydney, at a cost of 4d. for an unlimited time, whereas previously the usual charge was 8d. for three minutes. Local calls may also be made to places as far away as Gosford, Liverpool, Blacktown and all those adjacent places in the semi-rural areas close to the metropolitan area. This is a magnificent service for the people living on that peninsula. When honorable senators opposite talk about the extra cost, let me point out that a call which previously had to be made by trunk line at a cost of up to 2s. may now be made for 4d. This represents a saving of ls. 8d. on such a call, and a subscriber would need to make only 30 such calls to recover the extra money paid out in rental. I suggest, therefore, that **Senator Sheehan** just did not know what he was talking about, and that this is just one of the valuable additional services that are to be provided by the Post Office. I summarize by saying that the Post Office is a magnificent institution. This Government has placed it, and will continue to place it, on a sound basis. With the co-operation of the men who work in it, and with the application of good business principles, its future is unlimited, and the service it can give to the public will be unbounded. {: #subdebate-33-0-s8 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria .- I support the motion. 1 do not believe thai we can alter the already accomplished fact of these Post Office increases, because, in the language of the Bible, the Pharaohs of the Government have hardened their hearts. They claim that these increases are necessary to put the Post Office on a proper business basis and to provide for future developments. J am sorry that they do not also say that they propose to use some of the extra money to redress the grievances of postal employees with regard to their wages and conditions. If the Government had strongly expressed that intention, some of us on this side of the Senate might have looked on the increase with more favour. I propose to say a word to-night for a section of the community which has been penalized considerably by these increases. I refer to the small, the free and the independent press. We are all familiar with the fact that the instruments for the dissemination of information in this country, particularly the dailies, are fast falling into monopoly hands. To a big extent, one gets one particular point of view, one line, expressed, and it therefore becomes all the more necessary to do nothing that will interfere with the independent press, the small press, the free press which frequently expresses opinions which are not found in the great daily organs of this country. The newspapers to which I refer are the religious newspapers, the trade union journals, the new-Australian newspapers and organs printed and circulated by philanthropic and social bodies. During the discussion of the Matrimonial Causes Bill last year, we had an example of the manner in which, in the religious press, we got a different point of view from the material and secular point of view put forward in the great newspapers. I believe that the expression of those opinions on the Matrimonial Causes Bill in the religious press was valuable to the community in spite of the fact that I felt that the opinions received scant courtesy from representatives of the Government during the discussion. The religious journals, putting the point of view which they do, render valuable service to the community, just as do the trade journals, which put a point of view worthy of expression and which must be of value in a democratic country. I feel that when some of the religious papers are being put out of business - as they are - by these charges, the community suffers. I feel that the community suffers also when we find some trade unions deciding that they can no longer carry on the publication of the trade union journal. If I may say so, trade union journals are vitally necessary, and most of them are in good hands. A few are in Communist hands, but in those unions where the journal is in good hands, it is a valuable antidote to the circulation of the cheap sheets of Communist propaganda which are continually peddled around workshops and factories. If the Government is going to make it difficult, or impossible, for trade unions to carry on the publication of their journals, it will be dealing an insidious blow to the cause of industrial peace in this country. Further, I fear that the journals which will go out of existence are those which are in good hands because the Communist-led unions, with their knowledge of the importance of propaganda, will move heaven and earth to see that their journals are kept in circulation. The new-Australian journals serve a very vital purpose in this community. After all, they are a means of bringing to the notice of many new Australians who cannot read the ordinary papers very well, knowledge of what is happening. They tell these new Australians of things that they should know and give them an opportunity to keep in touch with their fellow countrymen. I think it is bad for the cause of assimilation and the happiness of these people to take action which makes it almost impossible for these journals to carry on. The same thing applies to the journals of philanthropic and social bodies. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing in a community. But what is the good of freedom of speech if the Government, through postal charges, places a tax upon the dissemination of information? What happens in the community if it is made almost impossible for any section of the press, except that run by the powerful monopolies, to continue in operation? The journals for which I plead have small circulations and small margins of profit. They cannot circulate through the newsagencies to any extent and they rely upon individual subscriptions which make it necessary for the journals to be posted to subscribers. Already some of these smaller journals have gone out of existence. A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned in this Parliament one journal that had gone, and only to-day I received a letter from a reverend gentleman who conducts two religious papers. He informs me that now that the full effect of the increased charges is being felt from March onwards, a costing he has taken out shows that the bulk postage of one of his journals will increase by 30 per cent, and that of the second paper by 80 per cent. Under those circumstances, how long they can carry on becomes a matter for decision. I have had quoted to me by representatives of these sections of the press what happens in the United States of America. I understand that as from 1st July it is proposed in the United States to increase postal rates. But I emphasize that in the case of the religious press and non-profit organizations it has been decided to charge only half the ordinary rate, and for that purpose a special *H* cer postage stamp is being printed in the I United States. I am given to understand that our Postal Department's reply to that suggestion is that in the United States of America no bulk rate concession is allowed at present, and that this concession granted in Australia can be weighed against what is being done in the United States of America. The answer of the religious press, the trade union press, the new-Australian press and others is that the United States Postal Department makes that concession despite the fact that, unlike the Australian Postal Department, it does not enjoy large profits from telephone revenue. Under the circumstances, I appeal to the Government, in the interests of freedom of dissemination of information and knowledge in this country, and in the interests of preserving that section of the press which is independent and which does not express the views of big business or powerful organizations, to look again at the charges it imposes upon the small newspapers and at least try to do something for them. They are going to be put out of existence, and we shall be the poorer for that because there is everything to be said for the small newspaper that puts the other point of view - the point of view of the small minority and the ideas that we do not find in the big organs of public information. As I have said, I believe some of them are already going out of existence, and others will find it hard to keep on because, in addition to the increased postal charges, they have to meet added burdens due to recent marginal increases in wages. They have a difficult enough task already and I suggest that the Postal Department is making their burden an extremely heavy one indeed. This comes at a very bad time for the printing industry also. We know that as a result of the lifting of import restrictions we will have overseas journals poured into this country in large quantities. Those journals will flood out of existence a thriving Australian industry which prints the small publications that came into existence during the period of import restrictions. That must cause more unemployment in the printing industry. If we add to that the fact that the present charges will tend to force out of existence other smaller publications in this country we realize that an even greater blow will be dealt to the printing industry. I therefore close with another appeal to the Government to consider further the position of these newspapers. I know that the Government altered the rates originally proposed, which were far heavier than those that have been obtaining over the last few weeks and that it has met deputations from the bodies concerned. Not so very long ago a deputation was received from the Religious Press Association of Victoria, which put a very strong case. I hope that the Government will give it every consideration, because apart altogether from any other value that these journals have, they present an independent, free point of view. It is a bad thing for the Government to tax information, news or newspapers in any way at all. We should have freedom of expression, particularly at a time when the daily press, radio and television are all fallinginto a few hands and tending to express only one point of view. I hope that the Government will consider that matter and will meet the wishes of the deputations from interested bodies, which have put a case showing the need for further assistance for the religious press, the trade union press, the new Australian press, and the press that represents philanthropic and social bodies in our community. {: #subdebate-33-0-s9 .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP -- The Senate would do well to remind itself that this matter is being discussed under the flattering designation of " matter of urgent public importance ". I say that, because with the single exception of the contribution just made by **Senator McManus,** since the motion was proposed this afternoon by **Senator Willesee** the debate from the Opposition benches has proceeded languidly, almost sluggishly. Indeed, one could almost hear the whip cracking over the backs of Opposition senators, who were acting under instruction to put up something of a show in the Senate. ] can only suggest that it has not been much of a show. It has not even borne the signs of a debate well prepared or an attack upon the Government well presented.In substantiation of that claim 1 need do no more than refer to one contribution made from the Opposition benches. That was a statement by **Senator Sandford,** of Victoria, who had the impudence to suggest that certain figures cited by my Leader, **Senator Spooner,** were not correct. A particular figure to which he referred related to the cost of installation of a telephone service. Honorable senators will recall that **Senator Spooner** said that the cost of installation ran to about £400. **Senator Sandford** said that that was not right. {: .speaker-K4S} ##### Senator Sandford: -- It is not right, either. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- He repeats that it is not right. I hold in my hand a pamphlet prepared for public circulation and issued not as a Government publication, but as a departmental publication for the information of the public. If **Senator Sandford** wishes to call to account the accuracy of the departmental official who prepared the pamphlet, he should say so now. This is what the pamphlet states, in relation to the cost of providing a telephone service - >This cost, at the consumer's end, however, may not amount to more than £20 in many cases and represents no more than 5 per cent, of the total cost of providing a telephone service. > >The present cost of connecting each new subscriber to the local network alone is of the order, of £300 - material representing about 60 per cent, of this figure. > >This expenditure is made up of: Current expenditure on the full national trunk line network involves a further cost for each subscriber of close on £100. The total cost of connecting a new subscriber and increasing progressively the capacity of the network to provide the plant to enable him to speak to any other subscriber in Australia, or overseas, would thus be about £400. Now let us talk about the institution that is under discussion, the Post Office, a wonderful public utility, a magnificent organization, that has contributed greatly to the progress, finances, commerce, and industry of this country. What does it represent in investment alone? The figures were cited earlier, but they are worth repetition. The capitalized asset value of the Post Office is in excess of £440,000,000. The significant point about that, which the Opposition has failed to grasp, is that all of thatmoney has come from the taxpayer by way of taxation. The most striking advances in the Post Office, both technologically and operationally, have been made over the past few years. In 1954-55, the capital voted was in excess of £27,000,000; in 1955-56, over £28,000,000; in 1956-57, £30,000,000; in 1957-58, £34,000,000; in 1958-59, £36,000,000; in 1959-60 not less than £39,400,000; the total for those six years being not less than £195,700,000. We have reached a point at which we put it to the Australian public, on the basis of common sense and equity, that the demands of the Post Office for legitimate and justified expansion are such that for no longer should the taxpayer, as a taxpayer, provide all this capital, and that the man who uses and gets the benefit as a user should pay for some of this capital expansion. That reminds me that all afternoon I have been thinking of the muted note that has been heard in the so-called attack of the Opposition. I refer to the reluctance of the Opposition to say how the money is to be raised if we adopt measures other than those that we propose. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- If you went to the loan market you would get it there. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- My friend **Senator McKenna** refers to the loan market. I am prepared to debate with him at any time of the day or night the respective achievements of his Government and of my Government in loan raising in Australia or overseas. There will be ample opportunity during this sessional period and particularly during the budget session for us to debate that point, but the striking thing about loans in this country is that this Government, despite the empty criticism levelled at it by the Opposition, has succeeded in raising by loan, moneys of a magnitude not even dreamt of by the Labour Party when it was a government. Where would the Opposition get the money to carry on the capital development of the Post Office? Would it say to the Post Office, " We do not propose to permit further expansion." Would it say that to the 86,000 employees who know, possibly better than any one else, the needs of the Post Office? Where would the Opposition get the money? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- By additional taxation. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- By additional taxation and capital levies, I am reminded and I am sorry that **Senator Cameron** is no longer in the chamber. Obviously the Opposition would get the money by additional taxation. Completely forgetting, as I said before, the difference between the taxpayer as such and the user of the Post Office as such, the Opposition would follow what is possibly the number one tenet of socialist thinking in connection with the financing of public utilities. It would not charge the users as such but would tax .the people, because taxation is the primary weapon in the armoury of every socialist.. The Opposition's proposal is not that there should be a cessation of capital expenditure in the Post Office itself but that further capital expenditure should be financed by additional taxation. Knowing the taxation policy of the Labour Party - as we all do - one does not have to wonder a great deal what will be the fate of the commerce and industry of this country when the Labour Party comes to power in the future - a future which is at present shrouded in the clouds of distance. {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Nevertheless, it is a future. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- A long, long way ahead. You and I will not be here when members of your party sit on this side of the chamber again. This motion, 1 suggest, is a complete expose of socialist policy for the financing of public utilities. The policy is to slug the people who pay taxes. I invite **Senator McManus,** who spoke feelingly of the small, free and independent press, to think for one moment what will happen to that small, free and independent press should it find itself the victim of socialist taxation policy. Like every other section of private enterprise in a free economy, it will feel the crack of the whip across its back. It will be driven into oblivion, to be supplanted by public utilities, financed not by the people who get the benefit of their services, but by taxation imposed at crippling levels on the general taxpayers of the Commonwealth. In the few moments that I have left to speak to this motion I feel that I would be doing less than a service if I did not take this one further opportunity to indicate how in all their actions the real hand of the socialists is inevitably exposed. The Opposition does not look upon these charges as charges for services. It is not concerned - and indeed honorable senators opposite make something of a boast of not being concerned - with getting a fair return for the Australian taxpayer on his capital invested. Those thoughts of business standards and business criteria do not worry honorable senators opposite at all; indeed they do not give them any consideration at all. The only thing that they keep dogmatically in their minds is that this is a method by which socialist policy can be imposed, regardless of its effect on the Australian economy, and that it is a means of adding to the advancement of socialist philosophy in Australia. However, 1 think I should point out that despite everything that has been done and despite the increases which have been imposed on the user- The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator** the Hon. A. D. Reid).- Order! The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-33-0-s10 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to reply to the last point made by **Senator Paltridge.** Although he said that it is not the policy of the Government to provide for capital expenditure out of taxation, he as Minister for Civil Aviation knows that his own department has spent £10,000,000 out of taxation revenue on aerodromes without passing on that cost to the users of air services by way of increased charges. That has been done in order to allow the aircraft to fly and to give a service to the people. It is a procedure with which we on this side of the chamber heartily agree. Also, I should like to ask **Senator Paltridge,** as a former Minister for Shipping and Transport, where the money is coming from to provide the Commonwealth Railways with the equipment that is at present being manufactured in Japan. Is it the intention to impose a levy on the passengers using the railway in order to pay for the capital equipment which is being provided for this government utility? 1 think that the Commonwealth Railways are probably the utility most comparable to the Post Office. **Senator Anderson** said that the moving ot this motion was only a political stunt on the part of the Opposition. I should like to remind **Senator Anderson** that we were no less vocal in our opposition to these increased charges when they first came before the Parliament some months ago. We are even more vocal now because after the six months that these rises have been in operation we have received from many thousands of our constituents the full flood of their protests against these impositions which, at the time they were introduced into this Parliament were not received wholeheartedly even by supporters of the Government. I need refer only to the speeches made in this chamber by **Senator Maher** and others who were most antagonistic to many of the provisions which were being introduced. 1 also remind honorable senators of the remark of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** in another place that he himself was in the dark about some of the proposals. The discussions that took place behind closed doors in the Government party rooms led to many of the original proposals being considerably curtailed before the legislation was introduced. In the light of this I say that honorable senators on this side of the chamber are not hypocrites. What we have had to say has been based on facts, and primarily on the fact that we are very great admirers of the Post Office. We are pleased that our motion coincides with the exhibition that is taking place to-day in King's Hall. The Post Office is a great governmental instrumentality. The Postmaster-General himself has said that Australia as a growing nation has horizons which are unbounded, but that its resources are limited and that the Post Office exists solely to serve the community. The point that the Opposition makes is that the Post Office is a government instrumentality which is also a business undertaking and that as it exists primarily - solely, the Minister says - to serve the community, the Government should provide the capital expenditure that it requires. I was amazed to read in the Minister's second-reading speech on the bill dealing with this matter that one reason for the discontinuance of the privileges which have been granted to those marketing educational books, papers, magazines and so on since the turn of the century was that, with the advances of science and technology, people had become much better educated and therefore did not need any postal concessions on books, periodicals, and papers. Surely the Minister should see that the better educated you are, the more you realize how little you really know, and the more avid becomes your desire for reading. Therefore, it becomes more necessary to see that reading matter is readily available to those who would make use of it. We find, in relation to the imposition of these increased postal charges, that they do not bear to the same degree upon all members of the community. The poorest pensioner in the land has to pay a 25 per cent increase on his ordinary letter charges. Registration fees have advanced over the last ten years from 9d. to 2s. As a sop to the people, the rates for airmail letters have been reduced from 7d. to 5d., but **Senator Maher,** a Government supporter, when speaking on this subject last year, said there was no call for this to be done, because only 7 per cent, of the mail matter of this country was normally sent by air, and to send the other 93 per cent, by air meant that we were increasing postal charges by 25 per cent, for the benefit of 7 per cent, of the people, who received a decrease of something like 29 per cent, in their postal rates. As a representative of Western Australia, I should like to say that we in that State appreciate very much the value of this decrease in postal charges. However, together with other Australians, we realize that the new system was not introduced because of public demand, but rather because the sending of more mail by air would enable the Government to give large mail contracts to the major airlines and the revenue from those contracts would help those airlines to recoup some of the losses arising from business that had gone elsewhere. It is not the function of the Government, as the Minister has told us over and over again, to provide a subsidy for any industry from any government instrumentality. I say that this reduction in the cost of airmail letters is just a sop, intended to make people forget the other impositions to which they have been subjected by the legislation. Telephone rentals have been markedly increased, as also have the cost of telephone calls, at a time when the revenue of the Postal Department was never more buoyant. The fact that three Ministers have taken part in this debate shows that the motion was not idly introduced, and that the subject under discussion has not been treated half-heartedly. They went to great pains to justify to the people of Australia the action of the Government in making huge increases in postal charges at a time when the revenue of the Post Office was never more buoyant. They argued that the increases had been made because of the basic wage increase and other wage increases. What the Minister himself had to say about this is reported at page 759 of " Hansard ". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The time allowed under Standing Order No. 64 for this debate has expired. {: .page-start } page 598 {:#debate-34} ### GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH Address-in-Reply: Acknowledgment by Her Majesty the Queen. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I have received from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral the following communication in connexion with the Address-in-Reply: - {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Mr. President, I desire to acquaint you that the substance of the Address-in-Reply which you presented to me on the 31st March, 1960, has been communicated to Her Majesty the Queen. It is the Queen's wish that I convey to you and to honorable senators Her Majesty's sincere thanks for the loyal message to which your Address gives expression. Yours sincerely, {: .page-start } page 598 {:#debate-35} ### DUNROSSIL {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Governor-General. 21st April, 1960 {: .page-start } page 598 {:#debate-36} ### MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS {: #debate-36-s0 .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP -- by leave - As honorable senators are probably aware, the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** left Australia on 17th April to attend important discussions abroad, including the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London. During his absence, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** will act as Prime Minister and the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** will act as Minister for External Affairs. The Prime Minister will be joined in London by the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck).** The Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne)** will act as Minister for Territories during his absence. I also wish to inform the Senate that some changes are being made in the representation in this chamber of Ministers in another place. In future, **Senator Gorton** will represent the Minister for External Affairs, **Senator Henty** will represent the Minister for Supply, and **Senator Sir Walter** Cooper will represent the Minister for Social Services. I will represent the PostmasterGeneral. Apart from these changes, the existing arrangements for representation will apply. {: .page-start } page 599 {:#debate-37} ### APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT Motion (by **Senator Spooner)** - by leave - agreed to - >That during the absence of the President, the Chairman of Committees, **Senator Reid,** shall on each sitting day take the chair of the Senate as Deputy President and may during such absence perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of Standing and Joint Statutory Committees to which the President is appointed. {: .page-start } page 599 {:#debate-38} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by **Senator McKenna)** - by leave - agreed to - >That **Senator Courtice** be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ul health. {: .page-start } page 599 {:#debate-39} ### CATTLE AND BEEF RESEARCH BILL 1960 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bin Con. motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide for intensified research activities in relation to the. scientific, technical and economic problems of the beef industry. Funds will be raised by a levy on cattle slaughterings and the Government will provide a matching contribution on a £1 for £1 basis to meet expenditure on new research work. The beef industry now becomes the fifth important primary industry to put forward a plan to finance research into its problems. Similar arrangements, designed to meet the particular- circumstances in each case, already operate in respect of the wool, wheat, dairy produce and tobacco industries. The introduction of this legislation marks an important step towards ensuring the future welfare of the Australian beef industry, since it opens the way to a concerted attack on vital problems which have been retarding the progress of this industry. The importance of the beef industry in our economy is well known. However; a long term view must be taken of beef pro duction in the Commonwealth, not only to meet the demands of our increasing population but also to provide increasedexport earnings. Beef is already, of course, a substantial export earner, but it still has an undoubted potential to play a still more important role in the financing of the rising import requirements necessary for the continuation of the rapid development achieved in the post-war period in this country. The output of beef has risen considerably in recent years. Total beef and veal production has increased from 606,000 tons in 1949-50, to 908,000 tons in 1958-59 with a consequent increase in the surplus available for export. Moreover opportunities clearly exist for increased beef production in Australia and particularly in our northern areas. However, there are many problems still to be overcome. For instance, two great scourges of the industry, namely, cattle tick and pleuro-pneumonia, demand intensified and co-ordinated effort. In addition, further research is essential in such matters as pasture improvement and the improvement of beef quality through breeding and stock management. It is clear that research can influence improvement in our production methods in many ways and so help Australian producers to protect their competitive position against producers in other exporting countries in the years to come. While the paramount need for beef research relates to cattle production there is also need for research into handling and transport problems and the other measures necessary to assist the development of the chilled beef export trade. In general, the primary objective of the present proposals is to expand beef production and to improve the quality of the beef marketed within Australia and overseas. Our competitive position on world markets should be improved and the Australian, consumer should also benefit as a result. This bill is the outcome of negotiations with primary producer organizations that have been proceeding for a. considerable time. The general principles of the scheme were originally submitted by the Graziers Federal Council of Australia. The plan has also been approved by the. Australian Agricultural Council. The finance to be contributed by the industry will be collected by way *oi* a statutory levy which will be imposed on all cattle slaughtered for human consumption over 200 lb. dressed weight, or 220 lb. in the case of a carcass with the skin on. Independent investigations by my department and by industry organizations indicate that this is the only practical and equitable way of raising the finance. The consensus of opinion is that the levy will be reflected in the price paid by meat operators for livestock rather than in the operators' prices to retail butchers. In practice the levy will represent a further charge which operators will take into account along with other intermediate charges when fixing their cattle buying schedules. In theory, therefore, the incidence of the levy will be borne by the producer, but competition amongst buyers is, of course, the main determinator of price levels. The maximum rate of levy will be 2s. per beast. It is proposed that the levy apply from 1st July, 1960, and that the operative rate be prescribed by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee referred to in the bill. The bill provides for the establishment of an account to be known as the Cattle and Beef Research Trust Account, into which will be paid the proceeds from the levy. In addition the account will receive a matching contribution from the Government on the basis of £1 for £1 with the beef industry in respect of expenditure from the trust account. In a normal year a levy of 2s. per head would provide an industry contribution of about £320,000. For the purposes of administering the trust account the legislation provides for the establishment of the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. It will consist of four representatives from the Graziers Federal Council of Australia, two representatives from the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, and one representative from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. In addition, the committee will include the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, one representative of the Australian Agricultural Council, one representative from Australian universities concerned with meat research, one representative of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and one representa tive of the Department of Primary Industry. This was the basis of representation agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council. The chairman of the committee will be elected by the members of the committee. It will be noted that there will be a majority of producer representatives on the committee. That is the system the producers want and it is only reasonable that they should control the expenditure of the funds. Requests have been received from interests associated with the processing, wholesaling and retailing of beef that they be permitted to nominate representatives to the committee. The Government has decided however that the composition of the committee mentioned in the bill is adequate and is representative of the interests associated with the supply of the finance and the co-ordination and conduct of the research undertakings. The main function of the committee will be to formulate plans with respect to the projects on which the trust funds may be expended. As the proposals provide for an expanded programme of research, the committee will have regard to current research activities and supplement them to the best advantage. Expenditure from the trust account will be incurred only after recommendations by the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee and after approval of such recommendations by the Minister for Primary Industry. Specific reference is made to the purposes of the trust account. Moneys from the account are to be used for scientific, economic or technical research in connexion with matters related directly or indirectly to the raising of cattle or the production or distribution of beef and other products of the slaughter of cattle; the training of persons for purposes of such research; the publication of information; and the application of the results of research, that is to say, in extension work. In addition the committee will be empowered to engage consultants to advise in its work as may be necessary. Provision is made in the bill for the Australian Meat Board to carry out the administrative arrangements and thereby avoid unnecessary overhead charges. As I have already mentioned, the bill is the outcome of negotiations in the Australian Agricultural Council and with meat producer organizations. It gives expression to the wishes of the producers that research in their industry should increase and to their conviction that the industry itself should supply funds for its own future welfare. They appreciate that the burden of any additional charges borne by them will be ultimately outweighed by the benefits that will accrue to the industry from the additional research undertaken. This relates particularly to the general recognition that the long-term welfare of the beef export industry will depend on its ability to command satisfactory prices in overseas markets in competition with other supplying countries. Quality is the key word. The original industry proposals applied only to beef. During the discussions with the producer organizations reference was made to the non-inclusion of mutton and lamb in the scheme, although no actual proposals had been submitted to the Government in that connexion. Consideration could, of course, be given to widening the research plan at some time in the future if satisfactory industry proposals should be forthcoming. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Benn)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 601 {:#debate-40} ### CATTLE SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1960 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to impose a levy on the slaughter of cattle for human consumption. The money so collected will be used to finance the scheme for an expanded programme of beef research which I have outlined in my second-reading speech on the Cattle and Beef Research Bill 1960. Honorable senators will note that the actual rate of levy to be imposed will be prescribed by regulation after recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee. The legislation provides that the prescribed rate must not exceed 2s. per head. It will be payable on all cattle slaughtered for human consumption over 200 lb. dressed weight, or 220 lb. in the case of a carcass having the skin on. The levy will be payable by the person who owns the cattle at the time when the slaughter takes place. Persons who slaughter ten head or less per month will be exempted from the levy. I commend the bill to honorable senators as a necessary complement to the Cattle and Beef Research Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Benn)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 601 {:#debate-41} ### CATTLE SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1960 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the levy imposed by the Cattle Slaughter Levy Bill 1960. The bill enables the Commonwealth to recover the amount of the levy from a proprietor of an abattoir at which cattle owned by another stock owner are killed for slaughter. In formulating the provisions the Government has had in mind constantly the vital necessity of both meeting the requirements of efficiency and safeguarding the legitimate interests of the proprietor of the killing establishment and the owner of the stock. Both this bill and the Cattle Slaughter Levy Bill 1960 need to be read in conjunction with the Cattle and Beef Research Bill 1960. I have already referred in more detail to the research scheme with which they are concerned in my second-reading speech on the Cattle and Beef Research Bill. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Benn)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 602 {:#debate-42} ### FLAX INDUSTRY ACT REPEAL BILL 1960 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {: .page-start } page 602 {:#debate-43} ### PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1960 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 31st March (vide page 398), on motion by **Senator Sir Walter** Cooper - >That the bill be now read a second dme. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- The bill before the Senate is narrow in concept, though it gives rise to a great deal of thought. Its purpose is to guarantee loans borrowed under the laws of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. It has been said that if the natives of the Territory are able to invest in loans they will be educated in the uses to which money may best be put. The Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** seems to think that the natives have money to spare which could be invested in .loans. I think many people will be surprised to learn that the natives have spare money, because it is well known that "where people are endeavouring to improve their living standards they tend to spend their money on material things that are required from day to day, rather than to invest it. The Minister, in 'his second-reading speech, stated that the natives of the Territory hide their money in backyard hanks, in bottles and in holes in the ground, and that this legislation will afford them the opportunity to help in the development of the Territory and, at the same time, teach them the advantages of thrift. When I first saw the bill and read the Minister's secondreading speech, some three or four weeks ago. I wondered how much money there would be in the backyard banks to which the Minister referred. I noted that the original loan was to be of only £100,000, and that the Minister considered there was a potential £500,000 for investment on the loan market. A week or so ago. I saw a report to the effect that, to that date, .only about £8,000 had been invested in the loan. I should like the Minister in charge of the measure in the Senate to bring me up to date on this aspect when he speaks. I am wondering whether the Minister for Territories was correct in his estimate of the amount of money in backyard banks which would be available for investment. As we know, because of the failure of government loans in Australia, the people have found it more advantageous to invest their money in other ways. It may be that, instead of the Government encouraging the people of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to invest in this £100,000 loan, it will merely encourage them to invest their money otherwise. The Minister stated that, in 1958-59, the cash crops produced by native growers were valued at more than £3,000,000, and he went on to say that, therefore, in the course of the year, more than £3,000,000 had found its way into the hands of the native population. It occurs to me to wonder how much of that money would go to the natives. The sum of £3,000,000 may seem a large one, but we must remember that costs would have been incurred in producing the crops and that not all of their value would have been profit to the growers. If the people were looking towards a better standard of living, I think they would use their money to buy things that would make their lives more comfortable, rather than invest it in something which would bring them no immediate benefit. If the educated natives made inquiries, they might find that government loans, at least on the mainland of Australia, were not a particularly good form of investment. The Minister pointed out that savings bank deposits in the Territory had risen during the last five years from approximately £2,000,000 to approximately £5,000,000. I suggest that most of the increase would be due, not to the savings of natives, but to those of the European people working in the Territory. I suppose there would be some of the educated natives who would be trained to appreciate this kind of investment, and who would have money in the savings bank. I do not quite like the tone of the bill, with, the whole emphasis on the question of native investment. There are some pretty big companies in New Guinea. The name of Burns Philp springs immediately to mind, but I do not want to single out any one company because there are many of them. If these firms are developing into wealthy organizations in New Guinea, then they should support loans raised in that area. In fact, one would expect that they might have given promises in advance to the governing body, the Legislative Council, that they would invest in this loan. If you are going to raise money for the purpose of building roads and providing electricity services, and encouraging the natives to seek a higher standard of living, then obviously the merchants are the people who will benefit just as much as the natives. This legislation, which is closely connected with the development of New Guinea, brings to our attention a matter that must be considered probably a good deal sooner than many of us think. I refer to self-government in New Guinea. This legislation is, of course, a step in the right direction. It is the only bill that I can remember which represents a positive step by the Government towards preparing the people for the day when they will achieve self-government. It seems strange that at the very time this legislation is before the Parliament, the Dutch government has taken the radical step of setting up in West New Guinea, alongside its own governing authority there, a native administration which will have equal powers. It is interesting to read a statement made by the Dutch authorities to the effect that they would like to see progress towards self-determination in West New Guinea proceeding at the same rate as in Papua and New Guinea. The Dutch Minister at The Hague was asked recently whether he would wait for Australia and whether there would be any co-ordination of activities by his government and the Australian Government with respect to the two sections of New Guinea, and he replied that he would not be held up by the Australians. Although no date has been fixed, it would appear that in the foreseeable future the Dutch intend to grant self-government to West New Guinea. When a native administration is set up in one part of New Guinea, I think it will tend to speak for the whole of that country. This has happened in Africa. When one part of the country achieves self-determination its voice will be heard far across the boundaries of that portion of the country. There is, of course, no full native administration in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, because there are only three native representatives on the Legislative Council, and if a full native administration is set up in West New Guinea, we shall suffer very seriously by comparison. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- The Dutch are SO years behind us in New Guinea. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- Of course, **Senator Kendall** is imbued with that old colonial spirit that has frequently got us into trouble. If we do not face up to the position we shall, within the next five years, be accused of colonialism in New Guinea, in the same way as such accusations have been made in other countries. I have not said for one moment that our administration in New Guinea is less progressive than that of the Dutch in West New Guinea. **Senator Kendall's** impetuous nature has impelled him to make this interjection. I suggest that he let me make my speech, because I am sure he cannot give me any help. I suggest that the whole question of selfgovernment will come up in New Guinea, in the same way as it has in South Africa, Indonesia and other countries. If honorable senators opposite and their colleagues, as Liberals, try to hold back the tide, they will run into the same problems that have cropped up in those other countries. **Senator Kendall** and his colleagues are the people who opposed the policy of the British Government in moving out of Pakistan and India, but that policy has since been proved correct time and time again. Honorable senators opposite will say, as they have said before: " The natives of New Guinea should be grateful to us. They are not ready for self-determination." The answer of the native population will be, as it has been in other countries, " We are coming, ready or not ". I do not say for a moment that peoples such as the natives of New Guinea would not be much better off if they waited a few more years. But it is all very well for me, from thousands of miles away, to say these things; it is all very well for you, sitting in your comfortable chairs with your conservative ideas, to say them. The point is that they will not be accepted. You will run into the same problems as have arisen in other countries. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- You are talking nonsense! {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I am not talking nonsense at all. All 1 have said is that the Dutch are to provide, in their parliamentary system, for some degree of selfdetermination for the natives of West New Guinea, and that this will reflect on our administration of our trust territory. The Dutch have said that they will make this move towards self-determination, whether we want to do so or not. Let me remind honorable senators that at this moment French Togoland is moving towards self-determination at a very early date. Within five years, if we can place any reliance on a newspaper report that I read only to-day, there will be only three trusteeship countries left in the world, and New Guinea, as one of them, will stand out very clearly. The second will be Nauru, which has a very small population, and the other will be the trust territory of the Pacific islands administered by the United States of America. It will be of no use for **Senator Kendall** and his colleagues to hide their heads in the sand. The pale light that is being reflected from Dutch New Guinea to-day will become a vicious and a harsh light, and will gradually shine more brightly on problems similar to those that have been experienced in other countries. We shall be attacked, whether our administration is sound or not. Put yourself in the other fellow's place. I suggest to **Senator Kendall** that if he were being ruled by a foreign power he would do the very best he could to regain control of his own country. It is no use saying to these people, " You must wait for a certain time ". As soon as people achieve a nationalistic spirit and receive backing from outside, both from well-meaning people and from mischief makers, there is no power that I can see in this generation that will prevent them from getting what they want. - **Senator McCallum.** - Which people do you refer to in New Guinea? {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I refer to the indigenous peoples. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- There are hundreds of different types. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I am shocked and appalled to think that anybody on the Liberal side of this Senate would argue against the proposition that the New Guinea people must some day achieve selfgovernment. {: .speaker-KT8} ##### Senator McCallum: -- I am not arguing that point at all. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- Of course you are. You are doing nothing else. But I say that this bill itself is a step towards selfgovernment. Surely the Minister's statement that the Government intends to encourage the natives to use the normal economic machinery that we use is an admission that it is preparing the people of New Guinea for the day when they will take over their country. All I am suggesting is that we may have to move a little faster than the majority of the people in Australia think. I did not realize until I looked at this bill that within five years New Guinea will be one of only three trusteeship territories left in the world. What do you think will happen when various members of the United Nations turn the spotlight on our administration of New Guinea? What will happen when the mischief makers move in on us, as they have done in Rhodesia and in other countries? Does the Government not believe that we shall have to face up to questions about such things as our white Australia policy, which can be twisted and used against us? If it does not believe that these things will happen, then I can only say that, like the ostrich, it has its head in the sand. I am shocked and amazed to think that any one would dispute what I have said. The Government must face up to the fact that we will have the spotlight turned upon us in a very few years to come. The Government will be faced with an age-old problem. We are fortunate in that we have seen this problem dealt with by many countries. Because of that, we should be able to prepare for it better than has any other country. We are not an oppressive people and we have had an opportunity to study the problem for a long time. Therefore, we should be able to prepare an almost perfect bill to deal with the matter. The Opposition wholeheartedly supports this measure although we doubt the wisdom of some of the thinking behind it. I question whether that thinking has been as sound as it might have appeared to be when the second-reading speech was delivered. Perhaps it would be wise to introduce a series of bills to follow closely upon the one under consideration and I am wondering whether this measure should not have been before Parliament some time ago. It may be that we should be acting much more speedily than we are. Because of our geographical position, we have to be twice as careful as other countries in the handling of our trusteeships. Geographically we are an Asian country and the moment we make a mistake we shall arouse the ire of the Asian people just as their ire was aroused when those fatal mistakes were made in connexion with the Suez Canal. Without analysing what happened in connexion with Suez. I point out that the attitude adopted by the Asian people on that occasion was that the whole question was one of white nations trying to belt down the black nations. That attitude will be adopted on every occasion when a similar crisis arises, especially when we realize that the press will headline anything connected with affairs in Indonesia and other south-east Asian countries. 1 repeat that, because of our geographical position, and because of the attitude we have taken, we cannot allow ourselves to make mistakes. I merely sound the warning that a crisis is much nearer than we think and that the moment we reach the stage when this is the only country of any size which holds a trusteeship, the spotlight of the world will be focused upon us. I suggest that the Minister for Territories, before he leaves for London or immediately upon his return, should make a further statement of our attitude towards New Guinea and Papua. I emphasize that no matter how much we may believe that the Dutch in West New Guinea are behind us, the eyes of the world will be directed at New Guinea. We cannot dodge that fact. It has been suggested that the natives of the Territory are 50 years away from self-government, but coloured peoples all over the world are demanding a greater voice in the government of their countries, and unless we do something to give the indigenous peoples of Papua and New Guinea that greater voice we shall suffer. I do not need reminding that we are not subjected to the pressures that are being experienced in Dutch New Guinea, or West Irian as the Indonesians call it, but I emphasize, that these areas are all in the one land mass. We cannot close our eyes to what has happened in Nyasaland, the two Rhodesias, and other countries where the people have been struggling for freedom. This problem cannot be restricted by geographical boundaries. It spreads far beyond any such barriers. I repeat that I support the bill. I merely raise these matters because I am wondering whether we are going to be as successful as we hope to be in inducing the natives to invest their money. I certainly hope most sincerely that the big business people of New Guinea will support the loan. Above all, I hope that this bill is not merely an isolated step towards those things which every decent Australian must believe in. This is a matter extending far beyond the administration of territories; it is a matter closely related to the work of the Department of External Affairs, and for that reason I hope that either the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** or **Mr. Hasluck** will make a further statement on it in the near future. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- I support the bill because I believe that this is a time in the history of Papua and New Guinea when the people who are making good money up there should be encouraged to invest in loans for the development of that Territory. **Senator Willesee** has pointed out that last year the indigenous people of the trust territories enjoyed an income of £3,000,000, and that it appeared to him that the only reason for trying to float a loan of £100,000 in New Guinea was to encourage the natives to invest their savings. I remind him that something over £20,000,000 contributed by the taxpayers of Australia was spent in New Guinea last year. Many of the people living in New Guinea are anxious to obtain a safe investment at a fairly reasonable rate of interest. Having saved their money, they will now have an opportunity of investing in a loan. The loan is not restricted to the natives of New Guinea; all the people living in New Guinea and all the companies operating there may invest in it. And why should they not invest in a loan floated by the Administration of New Guinea and guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government? Surely, nothing could be safer! Why should the people of New Guinea, who have enjoyed such rapid advancement, not be allowed, indeed encouraged, to finance the further development of that Territory? The Minister mentioned the building of power houses as one example of the way in which loan moneys raised in New Guinea can be spent. We in Australia have raised loans on long terms for the erection of power houses and the reticulation of electricity. Then, to my amazement, **Senator Willesee** said that we and the rest of the world should allow the indigenous natives of New Guinea to manage their own affairs. I distinctly remember a discussion I had with a member of the Department of Territories who had spent a considerable part of his life in New Guinea endeavouring to contact the native people and bring them to civilization. He told me that some areas were so wild and dangerous that administration officers had lived in villages for twelve months before being able to encourage the villagers to form councils of their own and join in the administration of the area. **Senator Willesee** evidently believes that the people could, if they were allowed, conduct their own affairs. One of the problems is that there are hundreds of different tribes speaking different languages. Within the last ten years persons entering some areas have been met with poisoned arrows. I am told by a colleague, who knows New Guinea far better than I know it, that over 700 languages are in use. At this stage of New Guinea's history, how could it be given self-government? {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator Sheehan: -- But we are working towards that end, are we not? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- We are, and nobody is more eager than the Government I support to give the people self-government when the time is ripe. I do not know that we shall be the judges of the time. The area is a United Nations trust territory under our charge. Recently members of a United Nations mission visited New Guinea and commended the Government and the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** upon the work that had been done. Democracy has already put down its roots. Within the last ten years 250,000 people out of a known population of 1,500,000 people have gone to the polls. They have become accustomed to the democratic process of electing their own representatives to manage their affairs. One would search widely in the dependent territories of the world to find a comparable political advance among people who started at so primitive a level. Yet **Senator Willesee** says that they should be given self-government. With 700 different tribes and languages, would it not be lovely? How long would it last? The Government is acting in the interests of the indigenous people of New Guinea. The last visiting mission of the United Nations reported that the growth of local government councils in New Guinea had been spectacular. The report continued - >One of the most impressive features of the mission's visit to the Territory concerned its meeting with various local government councils. . . The mission feels that the administering authority should be commended for the continuing rapid expansion of local government councils, which signifies a forward step in the political advancement of the people. In 1950, when this Government had just been elected to office, there were four councils serving 11,900 people in 55 villages. To-day there are 35 councils serving 240,000 people in 1,269 villages. Whereas in 1950 there were only 70 councillors, to-day there are 931 councillors. Taking into account those who have previously served, there are well over 1,000 persons who have had detailed experience of running their own affairs, who know how to take part in meetings and how to express themselves. It is of interest to compare production in the area over the past few years. Production of cocoa has increased by 200 or 300 per cent, in three years. As a result of encouragement given to the indigenous people, they grow 25 to 30 per cent, of the total exports. The production of gold has increased in the past twelve months by 35 per cent., and the production of rubber by 10 or 15 per cent. Whereas in 1950 the total value of New Guinea's trade was about £5,000,000, to-day it is more than £35,030,000. Those figures are significant. The Administration's report for 1957-58, which is the last one we have, shows that in the preceding three years facilities for the training and education of children increased by 100 per cent. So the Government, and particularly the Minister for Territories, are to be commended on the excellent job that has been done. The Minister's job has not always been easy. He has brought down some legislation which has not met with the approval of the Opposition or of the people living in the area. One measure related to income tax. Previously other forms of taxation had existed, but income tax was then brought more into line with Australian income tax, although the rates applied were much lower. We are now going a step farther. We are proposing to raise loans, or to give the authorities in New Guinea permission to raise loans that are approved by the Australian Loan Council and guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government. We have to look to the future. If we are to feed the increasing population of the world, which is growing at the rate of some 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 a year, we have to go much further with development, and I believe that New Guinea is an area which will go on developing. I note that whereas three years ago the Minister said that his aim was to produce 12,000 tons of cocoa a year, he now says that his aim is to produce 25,000 tons. On top of that, of course, there is the production of coffee and various minerals such as copper and silver. In regard to mining, no other country holding territory under a trusteeship would give a miner's right to one of the indigenous people enabling him to stake a claim and carry out mining operations. As well as giving him a miner's right the Government is prepared to advise him how to carry out his mining operations, and if necessary advance him loans for plant and machinery to equip his mine. That assistance is available at the present time to any of the indigenous people of New Guinea. Measures such as this which demonstrate that we trust the people - once they become civilized and are able to take part in the councils of the country - will help these people to enrich themselves. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that because of the climatic conditions that exist in New Guinea it is proposed that the loan certificates that are to be issued to people living in the Territory will be made of special fabric and placed in a container that will withstand moisture. Instead of a person burying his money in a bottle in a place only known to himself - according to the Minister, som; £3,000,000 a year is earned by these indigenous people - he will be able to purchase a certificate and thereby assist in the future development of his own Territory. Having purchased a certificate he can keep it wherever he likes until it matures. Then he can take it along to the bank and receive, not only the repayments of his loan, but also interest at the rate that is applicable to that particular loan. As we educate these people further they will be anxious to see that their money is used in such things as electricity undertakings. A native will be able to say, " I have a share in that electrical undertaking ". The natives will be anxious to develop New Guinea. Their standard of living is rising very quickly. I doubt whether any country, even Australia, has developed so quickly, on a population basis, as has New Guinea during the last ten years. Its trade has risen from £5,000,000 to £36,000,000, annually, an increase of over 700 per cent, in ten years. I should like any member of the Opposition who intends to criticize this Government for the way it has treated New Guinea to name any place in the world that has had such a percentage increase. I think that the Government has taken a wise step. Why should money be left lying idle in New Guinea? Why should it not be used in the future development of the country? It can be a means of achieving that development. The first loan to be raised will amount to only £100,000. We can see how that loan goes and I have no doubt that in future the amount of the loans will be increased as developmental money is needed. If within two or three years' time the Administration in New Guinea can raise say, £1,000,000 by way of loans, that will be £1,000,000 less that this Government will have to provide, and it will mean that the taxpayers of Australia will be relieved of the need to find that amount of money. I support the bill. {: #subdebate-43-0-s2 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland .- The purpose of the bill is to allow the Commonwealth to guarantee a loan amounting to £100,000 to be raised in Papua and New Guinea by the Administration. To appreciate what the raising of a loan in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea means it is necessary for us to get things into proper perspective, lt may be quite correct for the Administration to set about raising a loan of £100,000 in Papua and New Guinea; on the other hand, it may be acting incorrectly. Let us have a look to see what the general situation is. We do not own or control Papua and New Guinea. They are not an integral part of Australia at all. We are entrusted by the Security Council with the task of looking after those Territories, particularly the welfare of the native populations. For the purpose of the record - this point has been missed so far - I propose to inform the Senate of the population figures there. In Papua, the indigenous people number 478,000 and the nonindigenous people number 8,555. Any one who has had an opportunity of visiting Papua knows the races which comprise the non-indigenous people there. In New Guinea, the indigenous people number 1,326,000 and the non-indigenous people number only 15,000. In the two Territories there is a total population of about 1.800,000 people. The time has arrived, I think, for me to mention briefly the system of government or administration that operates there and how it functions. It is essential for this information to be placed before the Senate when it is asked to consider a bill which has as its purpose the raising of a loan in New Guinea and Papua. The system of government there is satisfactory; I have no fault to find with it. There is what is termed the Administration, which functions under the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator. From what I have seen of those two Territories, I have no fault to find with the work of those two gentlemen. If there is anything at fault at all, it is the amount of the funds made available to them by this Government to carry out native welfare work as I think it should be carried out. There is the Public Health Department, the Native Affairs Department and the Education Department. They all have to be provided for in the same way as departments of the Public Service in Australia. There are the Works Department, the Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries Department, the Forest Department, and the departments administering law, posts and telegraphs, lands, surveys and mines. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- And native affairs. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- If **Senator Kendall** had been listening more attentively, he would have heard me say that they have a Native Affairs Department. The real purpose of the Administration is to attend to native welfare. We can now safely proceed to another matter, that of finance. In these days, you govern through finance. You carry out your projects ai.d administer your departments according to the volume of finance available. It is well kr.own to every honorable senator that the sum of money made available during the current year by this Parliament to the Administration is £13,123,000. There are other amounts, too, but that is the amount that goes to the Administration. There are other sums for which this Parliament is accountable. For instance, there was at one time a superannuation fund operating in respect of the public servants employed up there, and the sum of £81,000 is still being provided for this purpose. There is a school known as the Australian School of Pacific Administration. That costs the Commonwealth £41,000. There are lighthouse services also, evidently to be provided for by the Commonwealth Government. They cost £19,000. I am saying this, **Mr. Acting Deputy President,** because at this point I want to stress the importance of what 1 am about to say. This is the point of my speech. What we are paying to the Administration is infinitesimal when you think of the budget figures of the Commonwealth. The total budget figure for the Commonwealth is £1,600,000,000. The sum of £13.000,000 is paid by the Commonwealth Government to the Administration in the Territories for its purposes. I have always claimed that the sum we pay to the Administration should come under the heading of defence. Tt is a defence payment when you analyse it. It cannot be regarded as anything else when you examine the geographical position of the two Territories in relation to the Commonwealth. The point I want to make is that the sum is small when you think of the budget of the Commonwealth. I come now to the proposed loan of £100,000. That is a relatively small sum. Individuals in the Commonwealth can borrow that amount of money. It is quite possible for companies to float a loan or make a note issue or a bonus issue and get £100,000. Very little can be done with that amount of money. Supporters of the Government have said that when this loan is launched up there the natives, who, according to the stories of honorable senators opposite, have been hiding their notes and their silver coins - coins with holes in them - in secret places, will go to those places, bring out their money and lend it to the Administration. Well, you have a very nice way of thinking about things if that is the way you think about the natives. Custom is one of the things that really guide them. I do not want to be at cross-purposes with any member of the Senate on this matter. I mentioned a while ago that or.e of the departments is the Education Department, and I know that that department concentrates its attention on the young natives. Why not teach them the advantages of a savings bank? {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- They are being taught those things. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Perhaps I know more about this than you do. Why not concentrate upon banking - upon a savings bank? I am looking at the situation in this way: If the natives have put a proportion of their earnings to one side in a bottle or a jam tin, as honorable senators opposite have told us, have they not forgone a certain part of their standard of living? Does not that mean that they are not adopting the standard of living that it was intended they should adopt when they were paid their meagre wages? They should be taught to live in a better way than they have been living. I do not say that they should have any money saved at all, because I know that they have a very poor standard of living. I ask the Minister a question which. I know he will not answer because he cannot. Why do not native savings bank branches operate in the Territory? {: .speaker-KAF} ##### Senator Wade: -- They are operating. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Where is the money coming from? The honorable senator is trying to represent to me that the natives own Coco-nut plantations and have gold-mining and sawmilling interests. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- They do too. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I know that a very few of them do, but we are dealing now with a loan of £100,000. There is too much camouflage around this matter. The sum of £100,000 could be raised in 100 minutes from some of the wealthy companies which have been operating in the Territory since before the honorable senator was born. To cite one example of the huge profits which are being made in the Territory, Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited last year made a profit of 355,000 dollars which, in Australian currency, is about £170,000. The profit made in one year by this company is greater than the amount which the Government is asking the people to subscribe. I should like to refer also to a timber company which is well known to honorable senators. We all know the Commonwealth's interest in the company, and honorable senators will recall one of the terms of the contract which was to the effect that if timber were brought into the Commonwealth and customs duty was payable on it, the amount of duty would be refunded to the company. This means that processed timber can be imported into Australia from New Guinea without customs duty being paid on it. Timber is still being imported to the detriment of the people engaged in the industry on the mainland, particularly in the northern part of Queensland. But I shall have something to say on that point later in this sessional period. Let me now deal with rural production in the Territory. I give credit to the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** for the work which he has done. But he has strayed somewhat from the policy of the Liberal Party, and a serious attempt was made not so long ago to have him removed from the Ministry because of the stand which he has taken repeatedly in the interests of the natives. I give him full marks for his actions. I know that cattle can be fattened in the Territory. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator Mattner: -- Where? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I visited the Territory after you had been there, and I know that the animals have become acclimatized. Certain problems have been overcome and there are now more cattle in the Territory than one would imagine. We have been told about the production of cocoa, but the natives are not producing that commodity except in the role of wage labourers. They are looked upon as the labour force. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- You are wrong. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I am not wrong. I know that some of the ordinances in relation to the employment of natives are being breached. **Senator Scott** painted a glowing picture to-night of native welfare in Papua and New Guinea. He told us of the great improvements that are being made there. I have witnessed some of them. When I was there I noticed the bridge over the Markham River, but that is something which should have been provided - something which the natives would appreciate. The Government has not put anything before us - it cannot do so - as to how this money will be spent. The natives of Papua and New Guinea are not concerned with projects of the kind with which we ordinarily are concerned. They are not interested in having a swimming pool or a sewerage system. Those are the last things to interest them. They are not concerned about kerbing and guttering, footpaths or anything like that. The Government proposes to say to the natives, " You subscribe to our loan and we will spend the money for you. Your economy will benefit, and you will be better off generally. In addition, we shall pay you a small sum as interest on your subscription." That sounds all right; but if you want to educate the natives, you must spend the money on something which they will use daily. If the Government proposes to use the money to promote an electricity supply in the Territory, the project would go unnoticed. It is not possible to bring within vision the spending of £100,000 on an electricity supply. So, if you intend to experiment with this loan - when all is said and done, it is only an experiment - get the £100.000 from the natives and construct something which they can see for their money - something which they can talk about and understand. The money could perhaps be used to build a hospital. I am positive that some honorable senators know the conditions which exist in native hospitals, and are aware of the tendency of the natives to take their dogs and pigs with them when they go to hospital. I have not much more to say on this important matter except to remind honorable senators that Papua and New Guinea have very fertile areas in which sugar cane, cocoa, coffee and peanuts can be grown. We provide about £13,000,000 for the Administration. If that sum were doubled it still would be insufficient. I believe that the entire allocation for the Territory should come from the Defence vote. Peanuts are being allowed to enter the Commonwealth and to be sold in competition with the locally grown product. That is a sad situation because 20,000 tons of peanuts are stored in silos at Kingaroy and at Atherton because they cannot be sold on the local market. If developmental projects are carried out in Papua and New Guinea and if crops such as peanuts and sugar are allowed to enter the Commonwealth, a serious problem will be created. Beer is now being brewed in Port Moresby, and this means that some trade has been taken from the Commonwealth, not that any one begrudges the Territory any activity which may add to the few industries in operation there. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- It is good beer, too. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- I have never sampled it, and probably I never shall, because 1 am quite satisfied to drink the water which the Commonwealth Government provides there. The Government has to provide everything for the Territory. If a mosquito eradication campaign is carried out in Port Moresby, the Government must foot the bill. The Opposition does not intend to vote against the legislation. I hope that the loan is a success in more ways than one. I hope that it is raised without any difficulty. It should be obtained from the nonindigenous people of the Territory who have done so well there. Some have made substantial fortunes and could with ease subscribe £100,000. When we talk about raising a loan of £100,000 in the Territory and compare that amount with the wealth of some of the companies operating there, I am reminded of the man who, after winning £100,000 in the New South Wales State lottery, got down on his hands and knees to look for a threepenny piece. 1 wish the loan well, and I hope that the money will be spent to the best advantage. {: #subdebate-43-0-s3 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP [10.50]. - in reply - I am quite sure that honorable senators will agree that the debate on this bill has been very interesting. The amount of money that is to be made available for loan under the bill - £100,000 - is very small. The bill will provide an opportunity for the indigenous people and other residents of New Guinea to subscribe to a loan which will be used for the further development of the Territory. As I have said, the amount of the loan is very small when we recall that the Territory budget is something like £16,000,000 or £18,000,000, but it is a start in the right direction and will enable people of the Territory to subscribe to new works and otherwise improve the Territory. Quite a lot has been said in recent times about the manner in which Dutch New Guinea is governed. A good deal has also been said about the way in which Australia handles the affairs of her territory in New Guinea. In my opinion the Dutch authorities are moving too fast towards selfgovernment in their territory. In our Territory, where progress has been much greater than in Dutch New Guinea, the aim is to grant self-government in easy stages. At present we have local councils in the Territory where natives govern themselves under the authority of the Administration. That system has proved to be a success and the natives are taking a much greater part in the government of the various districts. The Administration has encouraged the development of New Guinea by the indigenous peoples. The natives have been encouraged to own the land which they are farming and, by the granting of loans and provision of training, they have been encouraged to develop their country as far as possible. **Senator Benn** said that the native population did not produce much. I am informed that 25 per cent, of the major crops, such as copra, cocoa and coffee, is produced by the indigenous peoples of New Guinea. In the ten or fifteen years since the native population took an interest in the development of New Guinea, agricultural production by the natives has increased tremendously. The income from that production is between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year. Many of the natives who live away from the larger centres, such as Port Moresby and other towns on the coast, produce food which they barter for other things. Although the products are not revenue-producing they do help to raise the standard of living. Some time ago a native loan fund was started. Under that scheme the Administration will lend up to £5,000 to an organization, a co-operative society or a local council, and that sum can be used for developmental purposes. Quite a number of organizations have taken advantage of the scheme and most of the money that has been borrowed has been repaid rapidly. I am informed that at present only £24,800 is outstanding. The population of New Guinea is rapidly learning the European custom of borrowing and repaying money - with an interest charge, of course. At present about £30,000 is still available in the fund, which indicates that although the scheme is popular, it has not been used to the full. Under the ex-servicemen's credit scheme an indigenous ex-serviceman, as well as a European ex-serviceman, may obtain a loan to establish a holding of up to 15 acres. Fifteen acres does not seem to be a large amount of land, but in New Guinea, where the rainfall is good, the climate will enable a reasonable crop of coffee, cocoa or copra to be grown on a holding of that size. We look forward to this loan being taken up. I understand from a report in the "South Pacific Post" of 22nd April that already more than £18,000 has been taken up. The Government expects that some months will elapse before the people of the Territory become fully aware of this loan. I feel sure that the loan will be a success and it will be the basis of further loans, leading to further successful development of New Guinea. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {: .page-start } page 611 {:#debate-44} ### ADJOURNMENT The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).** - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - >That the Senate do now adjourn Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 April 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19600427_senate_23_s17/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant