Senate
30 August 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session



The Senate met at 3 p.m.

page 251

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 Ord’er 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 251

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is he aware that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department refuses to remove telephonic installations from the homes of persons who find that they are unable to pay the increased rentals now charged for these installations? Is he also aware that in such cases those who apply to have their telephones removed are informed that they signed a contract to retain them for a certain time? Will the Minister inform me what policy has been laid down in these cases?

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

– I shall ask the Postmaster-General to answer the question directly. To me, there seems to be a contradiction in terms here. As honorable senators know, there is a long waiting list for the installation of telephones. If people do not want their telephone connexions to be continued, there is plenty of scope to use those telephones elsewhere. I do not see why there should be any reservation about removing an installation.

page 251

QUESTION

KANGAROO MEAT

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that a kangaroo meat factory at Geraldton in Western Australia, which exports meat to Hong Kong, Singapore and Western Germany, has closed down, with the result that 50 people are temporarily unemployed? Two of the prin- cipals stated on Sunday that they would re-start the factory as soon as the Commonwealth Government compelled the examination of kangaroo meat throughout Australia. Is the Minister in a position to say what action the Government is taking? If no action is being taken, will he ask his colleague to treat this matter as urgent?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the report referred to by Senator Branson, and I do not know whether the Government is taking action to compel the examination of kangaroo meat. I shall do as the honorable senator suggests and ask my colleague to take note of the question that has been asked.

page 251

QUESTION

COPPER

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the Minister aware that the management of the Austral bronze factory in Derwent Park, Hobart, claims that its production of metal has fallen from 95 tons to 77 tons per week consequent upon the importation of copper to Australia at a price lower than that of the locally produced metal? Is he also aware that sixteen of the factory’s employees were dismissed last week? Can he indicate the extent of this trend and inform the Senate whether it is Australia-wide? Will he take steps to have the matter investigated urgently, with a view to remedial action, and make a statement on the position to the Senate?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry to say that I cannot give an answer to a question regarding the position of a particular factory in Tasmania. The elimination of import controls may have had some effect on the establishment. The Australian position in respect of copper products has changed dramatically. At one time, Australia was dependent on imports to augment its supplies, but to-day, it is a substantial exporter of copper.

page 251

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation give me any information about the likelihood of the aerodrome at Port Lincoln, in South Australia, being equipped with night landing facilities? I understand that such facilities are to be provided at Port Lincoln, but so far as I am aware, nothing has yet been done in connexion with the matter.

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

– 1 am not aware of the position regarding the provision of night landing equipment at the Port Lincoln aerodrome. 1 have an idea that it is one of the ai: ports at which such equipment is to be installed, but I do not know the priority that it has been accorded. I shall have a look at the matter and let the honorable senator know what is the position.

page 252

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Se: vice. As it is generally understood that the Commonwealth Government influenced the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, by means of pressures, against awarding an equitable rise in the basic wage recently, will the Government use the same pressures to restore to the seamen’s award the principle established about 30 years ago of adequate remuneration for overtime and week-end work, provision for which has been removed from the award?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I would not for a moment agree that it was generally understood that the Commonwealth Government had influenced the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or that, indeed, it was within the competence of a Commonwealth government to influence an entirely independent body set up to exercise its own judgment for the purposes of arbitration. The Commonwealth Government has gone no further at any time than to place before that independent body its views on- the state of the economy, and has left that body to make up its mind, uninfluenced by any pressures whatsoever. The Commonwealth Government has done that in the past and will do so in the future. The Government does not believe, as the Opposition apparently believes, in bringing pressure to bear on that independent body.

page 252

QUESTION

RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND GHANA

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, relates to the announcement in to-day’s press of an agreement between Ghana and the Soviet Union. By way of preface, I indicate that the agreement relates to trade treaties between the two nations, whereby the Soviet is to set up model state farms in Ghana and to have the right to prospect for minerals in that country. In return, industrial plants and power dams are to be built in Ghana by the Russians, who also will train some of the people of Ghana to be skilled workers. A further agreement relates to mutual trade. In view of this rather serious situation, can the Minister inform the Senate, first, whether other Commonwealth countries had the right to make corresponding agreement with Ghana prior to the Soviet Union doing so? Secondly, can the Minister say why the Government of Ghana, which so far has not indicated any pro-Communist tendencies, should have made such an agreement with the Soviet?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– 1 have no official information as to the truth or otherwise of the newspaper report that there is a trade agreement and the acceptance by Ghana of aid from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But I would think that the Republic of Ghana is fully aware of the danger of Communist infiltration into the country and of the dangers of entering into a committal of trade with Russia of the kind which certain Asian countries have entered into, to their great disillusionment. Of course, it would be quite open to any Commonwealth country to enter into an agreement with Ghana for assistance, trade, or whatever else it may be, provided that Commonwealth country and Ghana wished to do so. I ask the honorable senator to place the question on the notice-paper so that I shall be able to give him in this chamber more accurate information as to whether in fact there is any agreement and, if so, what area it covers.

page 252

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for National Development, by stating that I understand that the installation of a second reactor at Lucas Heights early in 1961 is contemplated. Will the Minister give the Senate a brief indication of the special purpose of the proposed second reactor? Has a contract been let for the building of the reactor? What is the estimated cost involved?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– We have made arrangements to put in a second reactor at Lucas Heights, and have let a contract. The reactor is to be called Moata. I hope no one will contradict me when 1 say that that is the aboriginal word for the expression “ making fire “. Moata will cost about £65,000. That sum represents a comparatively small investment, which arises from the fact that so many of the basic services are available in Hifar, the big reactor alongside it which cost about £2,000,000. The generating capacity of Hifar is approximately 10,000 kilowatts, while that of Moata will be 10 kilowatts. Moata is really in the nature of a research tool rather than a big reactor. It will be used for research and to give students and scientists instruction in the use of the large-scale reactor. I saw one of the same size in the Argonne laboratory when I was abroad, and I was surprised to see the great extent to which such a comparatively small reactor could be used for experimental work and the number of experiments that could be carried out with it.

page 253

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Territories inform the Senate why a permit to enter New Guinea for anthropological studies was refused to a distinguished professor from an English university who is in Australia as the guest of the Australian National University? Can the Minister explain why a period of more than three months elapsed before a reply was furnished to the professor’s application for a permit to enter New Guinea?

Senator SIR WALTER COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall obtain the information from the Minister for Territories and let the honorable senator have it.

page 253

QUESTION

RAIL SERVICES

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of preface, I mention that I was extremely glad to be present at Port Pirie last evening when the Minister for Shipping and Transport inaugurated a new tourist train service from Port Pirie to Kalgoorlie over the Commonwealth Railways system. 1 point out that while this service involves special excursion fares and substantial rebates in motor car freights, it still retains the traditional high standards of the Commonwealth Railways. My question is: Will the Minister ascertain when a similar tourist train between Port Pirie and Alice Springs can be made available, with special excursion fares and car freight rebates? Does the Minister think that apart from the attractiveness of such a service to the Commonwealth Railways fi om a revenue point of view, such new tourist trains could well make travel to the Northern Territory possible for larger numbers of Australian and overseas tourists and for the family man on a modest income who is unwilling to risk road hazards on the long journey between the settled areas of South Australia and Alice Springs?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall be pleased to put the suggestion made by the honorable senator to my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport. As a Western Australian, however, may I be permitted to say that the purpose of the service which the honorable senator saw inaugurated last night was to give eastern Australians the opportunity to see the Western Australian wild flowers at their best; and whatever are the abundant attractions of Alice Springs - and there are many - I am sure that Alice Springs has not this particular attraction to offer to tourists.

page 253

QUESTION

HIRE PURCHASE

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I should like to ask the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral three questions. Has the Minister noticed the statement that there is growing concern in Britain regarding the increased numbers of people being gaoled because of hire-purchase debts? In what States in Australia can debtors be imprisoned for the non-payment of debts? Is there a danger in this country of increased numbers of people being imprisoned because of the alarming growth of hire-purchase debts under the Menzies Government?

Senator GORTON:
LP

Mr. Deputy President, I believe the questions should really be addressed to the Attorneys-General of the various States. I understand this matter comes under State law and that only in very exceptional circumstances indeed can a person be imprisoned for the non-payment of debts.

page 254

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Has any State government, particularlythe Tasmanian Government, proposed to the Commonwealth a scheme to replace the war service land settlement scheme which expired on 30th June last? Have certain State governments announced their intention of proposing to the Commonwealth a scheme which will not be confined to ex-servicemen, but which will include share-farmers and tenant-farmers who have their own stock and plant, as well as others who are eligible under State closer settlement acts? Is it a fact that under this scheme land will be acquired in the same way as for the war service land settlement scheme and that the State governments concerned will pay the fair market value for such land? Will the Commonwealth Government make it a firm condition that any scheme for closer settlement advanced by the States, in which the Commonwealth may be prepared to cooperate, shall be based on the acquisition of land at fair market rates?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I understand that an approach along these lines has been made to the Commonwealth, but only in a nebulous way. I think the Commonwealth was asked whether it would make money available for closer settlement. The Commonwealth believes that, constitutionally, closer settlement is a matter for the States, and I believe that it has replied accordingly. Whether fair market values were paid for land acquired by the States for this purpose would be a matter entirely for the States. The Commonwealth itself is bound to pay the fair market price in any acquisition which it makes, but the States would be entitled to exercise their constitutional rights.

page 254

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that the Commonwealth Government previously intervened in proceedings before the Commonwealth Conciliation and

Arbitration Commission to oppose an application by the unions for an increase of the basic wage, opposing that application on the basis that industry had to have time to digest previous wage increases, and not on the basis of the justice of the claim, will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government again to intervene and to oppose the application that is at present before the commission?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I ask that the question be placed on the notice-paper. It may involve a matter of policy, which would not be a proper subject for a question, and in any case, I think I should get the responsible Minister to reply.

page 254

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. It relates to loans to building societies. Is it a fact that certain State governments guarantee loans to terminating building societies but not to permanent building societies, and that, because of this, terminating societies, which exist almost exclusively in New South Wales and Victoria, have been able to obtain from the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the Commonwealth Savings Bank loans amounting to approximately £100,000,000 whilst permanent societies have not been able to get anything at all from these two banks? Is it a fact that in the United Kingdom and the United States of America the building societies that first operated were terminating societies and that now the vast majority have changed to permanent societies? Will the Minister give the reasons why there should be such unfavorable discrimination against permanent building societies in Australia? Does he consider that in Australia terminating societies are preferable to permanent societies?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The question covers such a wide field that I really should make a speech in reply, but I shall not do that. It is true that the advances made to building societies in New South Wales and Victoria by the Commonwealth Bank and by other banks are made to terminating societies, not to permanent societies. That is a matter for the banks themselves. I think it is mainly due to the fact that it is simpler for a bank to take and segregate securities from terminating societies than from permanent societies. In Tasmania and Western Australia, the State governments guarantee banking transactions with permanent societies in the same way as they guarantee banking transactions with terminating societies. So there is no distinction in those States. I would hesitate to say that the terminating building society is peculiar to Australia but it is a type of building society that flourishes here to a greater extent than in other countries. In Great Britain, Canada and the United States building societies are of the permanent and not the terminating form. In North America they are known as savings and loan associations.

I believe that the permanent building society is the much sounder structure of the two for raising finance for home building. While I have supported all building society movements I have constantly asked building societies to try to divert their energies towards increasing the growth of the permanent kind of society.

page 255

QUESTION

ROAD TRANSPORT

Senator TANGNEY:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport by stating that about five years ago I directed attention to the fact that long-distance transport drivers were taking pep drugs and I asked that something be done to stop the practice. Is the Minister aware of the increasing concern of authorities in all States at the extent of this practice, which is perhaps a contributory factor in the rising death toll from accidents involving long-distance transports with their huge loads? Will the Minister undertake to discuss this matter with State authorities and transport unions in order that a uniform road code to deal with the problem may be drawn up?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall be pleased to refer the honorable senator’s question to my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, but I can assure her that a uniform traffic code is a subject at present under discussion by a subcommittee of the Australian Road Safety Council. I understand that considerable progress has been made towards obtaining unanimity of views in this respect. Bylaws to govern transport drivers are matters for the States themselves. I do not know whether the matter raised by the honorable Senator is being discussed by the subcommittee to which I have referred. I would think that perhaps it is not. However, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Opperman, to provide a full answer to the question.

page 255

QUESTION

VISIT OF RUSSIAN AUTHOR

Senator MCCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether the visiting Russian, Alexei Surkov, who is at present, I believe, the guest of the Fellowship of Australian Writers, is the same Alexei Surkov who openly stated that literature was an instrument intended to strengthen revolutionary passion and be an active instrument in the Communist education of the masses. Is he also the same Alexei Surkov who took an active and leading part in attempting to suppress and, I think, to defame the great Russian poet, Boris Pasternak? Will the Minister make clear to the public that whatever Alexei Surkov may owe to his work as a poet for such fame as he enjoys he owes at least as much, and perhaps more, to his pre-eminence as the persecutor of a poet?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I understand that the individual referred to by the honorable senator did take a leading part in the official persecution of Boris Pasternak, the Russian writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize but who was refused permission to accept it. Boris Pasternak was driven out of the writers’ union in Soviet Russia and, indeed, hounded to death because he regarded literature as an end in itself and not as something to be used to subserve the total state, in which the rulers of Soviet Russia believe. Consequently, I think it would be true to say that any eminence which Alexei Surkov attained was due as much to an attack on literature as to any literary achievement.

page 255

QUESTION

VICTORIAN POLICE FORCE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it necessary for members of the Victorian Police Force to be stationed permanently inside the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission building in Melbourne? Are the police within their rights when they attempt to prevent law-abiding citizens from using the corridors in the ordinary course of business? ls it an infringement of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for a person to carry just outside the building a banner which reads, “ We want more wages “? If it is not, why did the police confiscate a banner outside the building last week? Was police action justified because a number of metal trades apprentices had assembled in an orderly manner in the street outside the building? Will the Attorney-General confer with the State authorities and have these surplus police transferred to the grounds of the University of Melbourne, where a number of intellectual vandals recently caused considerable damage and inconvenience to the fire brigade authorities, and against whom the police have not taken any action?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– As the honorable senator knows, the police in Melbourne are entirely under the control of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Victoria. He, I have no doubt, is perfectly competent to judge whether a demonstration is, aimed at endeavouring to intimidate a court’ or a commission and, therefore, will use the police force according to his own discretion.

page 256

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can he advise me whether there is a definite agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on tax reimbursements to the States? ls there provision in the agreement covering increases in costs and population? If there is, what is the amount of increase provided for this year? Does the agreement restrict the amount that a State may spend on primary and secondary education? As education is a matter for the States, will the Minister advise me whether, at the Premiers’ Conference that was held in June of this year, the Premiers approached the Commonwealth for special financial assistance to help them provide extra educational facilities?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

Mr. DeputyPresident, the honorable senator has asked a variety of questions. The answer to the first question, as I was able to take it down, is that there is an agreement between the States and the Commonwealth in respect of tax reimbursements. That agreement, which was reached unanimously by the representatives of the Commonwealth and the States, was varied only a little while ago. This is the first year in which the variation is given practical effect. The agreement has been varied to provide that the grant payable to each State in any financial year after 1959-60 will be calculated having regard to the variations in population in each State. The amount of reimbursement grant will be varied by the change in average wages in Australia during the preceding financial year, and a betterment factor. The practical result this year has been that the total amount of increased grants made to the States runs to about £29,000,000 or £30,000,000. I have read the report of the meeting of the Premiers with the Commonwealth representatives that was held earlier this year, and I think I am right in saying that at that time the question of special Commonwealth aid for education was not raised by the States.

page 256

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General by saying that for some years now the excuse that has been given for delays in telephone installations has been a shortage of cable and of exchanges to which to link the telephones. As these reasons have now been cast aside by the Postmaster-General, can the Minister inform me how long it will take to overcome the lag of some 45,000 applications for telephones? If the Minister cannot answer that one, can he tell me how long it wil, take to satisfy the 3,000-odd applicants for telephones in the Glenelg, Brighton and Marion areas in South Australia, who have been waiting for telephone installations for upwards of two years?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am in the fortunate situation that I cannot answer either of them, but I shall give a general answer. The position in relation to telephones is comparable with that in relation to many commodities and services in Australia. As our population has increased by 25 per cent, during the last decade - a decade that followed a world war - there are many shortages in Australia. I think we should be thankful for the rate at which the shortages of so many commodities and services have been reduced in recent years.

page 257

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister by saying that we have received a report from the Decimal Currency Committee and that that report has been the subject of considerable editorial comment in the Australian newspapers. In view of the active interest of the Prime Minister in all matters connected with education, will he make immediate arrangements for the Commonwealth Office of Education to compile a pamphlet explaining in simple language what is meant by decimal coinage, and to have it distributed amongst all the school children of Australia? If anything is done in consequence of this report, it will be the generation comprising the school children of to-day who will be called upon to implement the scheme, and I feel it is more important to start at the bottom rung than to worry about the machinery which will be required by the financial institutions. An authority has stated that more than 80 per cent, of the people of Australia do not know what a decimal coinage is. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will see that an explanatory pamphlet is printed and made available in the schools in the various States of the Commonwealth.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I think the honorable senator’s suggestion has a lot of merit, and I shall convey it to the Prime Minister’s Department for consideration. I assume that we would not prepare or distribute such a pamphlet until such time as the Parliament had said “ Yea “ or “ Nay “ to the decimal coinage proposal.

page 257

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator LAUGHT:

– In addressing a question to the Minister for the Navy, may I refer to the wisdom of the Navy in agreeing to take part in the celebrations con nected with the opening, in a month or so, of the new harbour works at Portland in Victoria, by providing a warship and also by making it possible for an Antarctic-bound ice-breaker of the United States Navy to participate. Can the Minister indicate whether any further joint operation is contemplated between the Royal Australian Navy and the United States naval detachment, particularly in connexion with the great boost which the United States Navy will give to Antarctic research this coming summer? Can a place for Royal Australian Navy personnel, as observers, be sought in United States naval vessels in Antarctic waters?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– There are not, as far as I know - and I would know - any plans for the Royal Australian Navy to cooperate with the United States Navy in Antarctic work during this coming year. 1 will consider the honorable senator’s suggestion that some Royal Australian Navy personnel might go with the United States Navy as observers, and I will communicate to him the results of that consideration.

page 257

QUESTION

TIN

Senator SCOTT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development, ls it a fact that the restrictions on the production of tin under the international Tin Agreement have been removed? If so, what will be the effect on the world price of tin, and how will Australian producers be affected?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I should like to have a chance to give a little more thought to this matter before committing myself to an opinion. The exportation of tin by tinproducing countries was curtailed, but there is now no limitation on production or exportation. To me, that indicates that the Tin Council is confident that supply and demand are equated and that there will be a stable price. Australia, as a tin-producing country, could not afford to have a lower price for tin than is now being paid, because then we could not produce profitably. The position is very interesting. I assume that the surpluses that were depressing the market a few years ago have been reduced or eliminated, but I want to make further inquiries.

page 258

QUESTION

CRASH OF QANTAS AIRCRAFT AT MAURITIUS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question about the accident in which a Qantas aircraft in Mauritius was involved on Thursday last and about what seemed to me to be a most creditable performance on the part of the crew in avoiding fatalities. Is the Minister in a position to say whether the official information confirms that view, or has he any information to give the Senate as to the cause of the near catastrophe?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am proposing, at an appropriate stage to-day, to ask for the leave of the Senate to make a statement on the accident.

page 258

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator BRANSON:

– My question is directed to you, Mr. Deputy President. Could you ascertain the date on which we may expect a decision regarding the type of microphone to be adopted in the chamber and inform the Senate accordingly? At the moment, about five different kinds of microphone are in use here. That in front of Senators Hendrickson and Benn is so effective that, through my amplifier, I can hear the slightest whisper from them. If I may say so, Sir, the chamber has the appearance of an electrical dealer’s experimental room or display window, and I should be interested to hear when we may expect a decision to be reached in the matter.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I understand that the present installations are being tested and that after full testing has been carried out a decision will be made regarding the most suitable microphone to be installed in the chamber.

page 258

QUESTION

DONKEYS

Senator SCOTT:

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, by stating that donkeys are having a most adverse effect on feed supplies in the north of Australia, with a resultant bad effect on the production of cattle. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to have donkeys classed as vermin for the purposes of the Income Tax and

Social Services Contribution Act. If that were done, beef producers would be able to fence their properties to curtail the inroads of this pest, and claim the money so spent as a tax deduction. I think this would help considerably to reduce the number of donkeys in the north of Australia.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall be pleased to refer the request of the honorable senator to my colleague, the Treasurer. I am sure he will approach it with considerable sympathy and understanding, as a good deal of his time seems to be directed to the elimination of donkeys.

page 258

QUESTION

CUSTOMS ACT

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the number of offences known to have been committed in Tasmania, against the Customs Act during the past three years?
  2. Is it a fact - (a) that poor quality watches, stamped with the names of reputable firms, are being smuggled into Tasmania by persons from overseas and are being disposed of at a price considerably in excess of their value, and (b) that persons travelling on overseas vessels calling at Devonport to freight cargoes of meat to Sydney and Brisbane are amongst the worst offenders in this regard?
  3. What is the scale of penalties imposed when offences are detected and what supervision is exercised to detect such offences?
Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– I now furnish the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -

  1. In the past three years the Collector of Customs for Tasmania has taken action in 80 cases involving offences against the Customs Act. 2. (a) The use of well-known names on inferior type watches is a device sometimes associated with the smuggling of watches into Australia. Some inferior type watches have been detected in Tasmania recently. (b) The incidence of watch smuggling in Tasmania cannot be coupled with any particular type of overseas vessel.
  2. The penalties for offences against the Customs Act are dependent on the particular sections of the act under which the offence is committed. Penalties for smuggling can involve fines of up to £100 or thrice the value of the goods. The act also provides for forfeiture of the goods related to the offence. The Department of Customs and Excise has a trained staff of preventive officers which maintains a vigilant watch against all forms of smuggling.

page 259

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator BROWN:

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

  1. How many missionary organizations are there in New Guinea and Papua?
  2. What are the names of the denominations?
Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– The

Minister for Territories has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Forty as at 30th June, 1959.
  2. The names and other particulars of the various denominations are set out below -

page 260

QUESTION

EXPORT OF FINCHES

Senator WILLESEE:
through Senator O’Flaherty

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice -

  1. How long has the ban on the export of finches been in operation?
  2. Does the Government intend to apply the ban indefinitely?
  3. Is the Minister aware that this is an old established export from Western Australia?
  4. Is he aware that catching is concentrated in the Kimberley area?
  5. Would the Minister sympathetically consider a relaxation or modification of the ban?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– I now furnish the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

  1. Since 1st January,1960, the exportation for commercial purposes of all animals and birds native to Australia has been prohibited.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. I am aware that a considerable amount of trapping is carried out in the Kimberley area but I am also aware that trapping takes place in other areas in Australia.
  5. The Government’s decision involved the prohibition of export of Australian fauna for commercial purposes and was made only after full consideration of all the factors involved.

page 260

PUBLIC SERVICE

Interim Report

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– For the information of honorable senators in their consideration of the Budget and Estimates, I lay on the table a preliminary statement by the Public Service Board relating to staff employed by the Commonwealth under the Public Service Act at 30th June, 1960. As soon as the final report of the Public Service Board is available I shall, of course, be tabling it in accordance with the statutory requirements.

page 260

TREASURY REGULATION 52

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I present the following report: -

Forty-eighth Report - Treasury Regulation 52 (Second Report).

May I say, for the information of the Senate, that in the committee’s first report on Treasury Regulation 52 - the fortysecond report, presented in this chamber on 8th October last - the committee proposed the formation of a departmental working party to examine certain aspects of procurement. This report is the result of the committee’s consideration of the report of the working party and other information which has become available to the committee since the original inquiry.

In broad terms, Treasury Regulation 52 enunciates the principle that all government contracts involving expenditure in excess of £200 should be let by public tender. Prior to the committee’s inquiry, there had been proposals put to the Government that this limit be increased to £2,000 or perhaps £5,000, but proposals which later were put to the committee were in terms of a limit of £1,000 or £2,000. However, not all departments supported those proposals. After examining all the evidence the committee has recommended that the present monetary limit in Treasury Regulation 52 be lifted to £500, provided that two additional safeguards are introduced by amendment of other Treasury regulations.

I conclude my remarks by saying that the recommendations of the committee have been made after considering the sustained, conflicting opinions of various experienced Public Service departments and authorities. There are disturbing features about the way the Public Service went about the various departmental investigations into Treasury Regulation 52, which the Public Service would do well to consider carefully.

Ordered to be printed.

page 261

CRASH OF QANTAS AIRCRAFT AT MAURITIUS

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– by leave - The Qantas Super Constellation VH-EAC “ Southern Wave “, operating the regular South Africa-Australia service, was involved in an accident taking off from Mauritius airport on Wednesday, 25th August, at 11.50 p.m. E.S.T. An official investigation is proceeding at Mauritius and an officer of the Department of Civil Aviation, Captain J. Brough, Senior Examiner of Airmen, is to be the accredited representative of the Australian Government on the accident inquiry panel. He is already in Mauritius.

The accident occurred at dusk in rainy weather. An engine failed at a point in the take-off before the aircraft had gained sufficient speed to be flown on the three remaining engines. In accordance with safety rules applying in these circumstances, the captain elected to stop rather than continue the take-off. Owing to the wet runway, the captain was unable to stop and the aircraft skidded over the end of the runway into rocky terrain. The left undercarriage collapsed and the aircraft caught fire and was soon completely destroyed.

The approved evacuation procedure went according to plan and the 38 passengers and twelve crew got clear of the aircraft in about 90 seconds. Nobody was injured in the aircraft itself. What injuries they did sustain were caused by jumping from the aircraft to the ground, some of them into burning grass. Eleven passengers received injuries which were mostly of a relatively minor nature, the most serious being a fractured ankle. All passengers, except the one with the fractured ankle, have now continued their journey. The passengers sent a cable to Qantas from Mauritius highly praising the crew for their rescue from the burning aircraft.

This is the first accident Qantas has had on international operations. This is a remarkable record as the company’s fleet has flown since the last war alone nearly three-quarters of a million hours. I am certain that the crew’s rigid observance of the safety code relating to engine failure on take-off and its efficient evacuation of the aircraft undoubtedly resulted in the accident not having any fatal consequences.

page 261

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 261

QUESTION

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1960-61

Debate resumed from 25th August (vide page 249), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the following papers: -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works and other Services involving Capital Expenditure, for the year ending 30th June, 1961.

The Budget 1960-61 - Papers presented by the Right Honorable Harold Holt in connexion with the Budget of 1960-61; and

National Income and Expenditure 1959-60 - be printed.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

Mr. Deputy President, in my opinion this debate is designed primarily to enable honorable senators to express their opinion not so much about individual items in the Budget Papers as about what they believe to be the overall effect of the Budget proposals on the economic wellbeing of all the Australian people. That does not mean that it is not possible for any honorable senator, if he feels so inclined, to select some of the items contained inthe Estimates and Budget Papers and discuss them without any thought about whether the overall Budget proposals are good, bad or indifferent. I believe that when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition he was of the same opinion as I am. It is worth remembering that at that stage of the debate the only matters that Senator McKenna had to deal with were those presented in the speech that was delivered by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in a similar speech delivered by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in another place.

Senator Paltridge, when opening this debate on 16th August, said -

To-night, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) is delivering in another place his Budget speech for 1960-61. I should like to refer briefly to some of the main features of the Budget and to the relevant circumstances of the economy as a whole.

The Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) who spoke after Senator McKenna, and on behalf of the Government, commenced his contribution to the- debate by saying -

The first thing that I should like to say in reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is that I do not think I have ever heard a speech on the Budget in this Senate which dealt less with the detailed proposals put forward by the Government. I do not think that Senator McKenna attacked in detail any of the positive propositions that have been put forward by the Government as concessions of one kind or another to the people of Australia. I did not hear him attack in any detail the proposal to increase the rate of company tax by 6d. lt seems that in Senator Gorton’s opinion it is quite okay for Senator Paltridge to deal with what he describes as being the relevant circumstances of the economy as a whole; but, on the other hand, he demands that Senator McKenna should deal in detail with the specific items that Senator Gorton himself selects. Probably that was not the opinion that Senator Gorton was endeavouring to convey. More likely the truth was that he desired to evade the responsibility of answering the positive proposals that were put forward by Senator McKenna in relation to the effects of the Budget proposals on the economy as a whole, and that his opening remarks were a subterfuge.

In any case, Senator Gorton apparently is at odds with the leaders of the Government in another place. The Treasurer, when reading his prepared statement in another chamber, had this to say1 -

More than ever these days, the Commonwealth Budget has to be regarded as a means to guide the broad trend of the economy in the direction of certain well established goals. It is common ground with all of us that we want to see a strong continuous growth of population and industry, rising standards of living, full employment of labour and such a degree of stability as will promote these aims and safeguard the share in the gains of progress to which everyone is entitled.

He further said -

The final criterion must however be whether, at the time, those claims and interests can be reconciled with the general interests and aspirations of the economy as a whole.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in the course of his brief contribution to the debate in another place, had this to say about the economy as a whole, as reported at page 465 of the “ Hansard “ report -

To defeat inflation, to restrain it, to bring it to a halt is the supreme task of this Parliament.

Then following a few interjections, the Prime Minister said -

How does the Opposition propose to defeat inflation? We are not told. This is the great task of this Budget, as it is of all budgets, and it is a very difficult task requiring a great deal of serious thought and a great deal of close study. How do we defeat inflation while maintaining development? This is the central problem of our economy to-day. It is a very hard task and a task that can be solved only with constructive ideas.

It seems to me, Mr. Deputy President, that in this chamber Senator McKenna carried out the request the Prime Minister made in another place, only to leave himself open to criticism by the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton).

Broadly speaking, the Labour Party agrees with the sentiments expressed in the contributions of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister; in other words, we agree with the Treasurer when he said what the broad aim of a budget is in this day and age. We also agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the control of inflation is the prime duty of this Government and that the effect of inflation on the people of Australia overrides all other problems. Where we do not agree with the Government is that we believe - in fact we are convinced - that at no stage has the Government introduced worth-while measures to control inflation. Nor has it made any worth-while endeavours to see that its failure to curb inflation has not resulted in burdens falling inequitably on one section of the community while at the same time allowing another section of the community, not just to avoid the burdens of inflation, but indeed to profit from them.

We on this side of the chamber believe - it was stated quite categorically by Senator McKenna - that the Government should and could distribute the burdens of inflation more equitably among all sections of the community, but that the Government, even if it had the goodwill and the intention to control or halt inflation, could not do so because of the limitations imposed on its constitutional powers. That, in my opinion, is the kernel of the difference between the philosophy or policy of the Australian Labour Party and that of the Government parties. The Government parties, if their record means anything, have no desire to ensure that burdens of inflation are borne equitably. Government members most certainly have not indicated that they have any desire to obtain the necessary powers. They are not prepared to do anything to endeavour to obtain from the people by referendum the powers which are necessary to enable them to halt inflation in Australia.

Despite the fact that the Prime Minister considered inflation the prime problem confronting the Government, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who preceded me in this debate, dealt with the matter of inflation in exactly seventeen words. As reported in “Hansard” of 25th August, 1960, she said -

It is a Budget designed to fight the problem of inflation,, thus benefiting everybody in this community.

If we analyse those seventeen words, I think we can arrive at only two or three conclusions. First, we could possibly take it that Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin meant that this Budget, which is, I think, the eleventh to be brought down by this Government, is designed to defeat inflation. If that is true, it means that the previous Budgets brought down by this Government were not designed to defeat inflation. That would make a bigger travesty of truth of the Government’s promise to the people of Australia in 1949 that if it was returned to power it would put value back into the £1.

If the honorable senator did not mean that this is the first Budget to be presented by this Government that is designed to defeat inflation, she must have meant that previous attempts which were designed to defeat inflation proved abortive, and we are asked to believe that in this Budget there is some magic formula by which inflation is now to be halted or defeated. I do not think there ls anything in this Budget which indicates that it differs in any great degree from the proposals contained in previous Budgets. In point of fact, I feel sure that anybody who took the trouble to listen to the contribution of the Prime Minister in another place, or to read the report of it, would agree with nae that the undercurrent of it was that this Budget would not and could not defeat inflation, and he invited the Opposition to tell him how such an objective could be attained.

I come now to the other aspect of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin’s contribution on inflation. I think I may quite fairly remind the honorable senator that the designing of something to achieve a purpose and the successful achievement of that purpose, in many instances, can be as far apart as the poles. For example, I can recall a flashback movie which showed an early attempt by a man to fly. He designed two wings which could be attached to his arms. He thought that if he ran fast and flapped his arms, he would rise into the air It is unnecessary for me to say that his attempts proved abortive. I do not think anybody can deny that the previous ten or eleven budgetary attempts by this Government to halt inflation have also proven abortive. The honorable senator asked us to accept, just on her say-so, the fact that the Budget was designed to defeat inflation, thus benefiting everybody in the community.

It might be worth while to trace the history of the Government parties, both in office and in opposition, and to see whether there is anything in their record over the last couple of decades that would engender confidence that they have either the desire or the ability to cope with the problem of inflation. A government of a political colour similar to that of the present Government was in office at the outbreak of World War II. It carried on under the slogan, “ business as usual “. Prices rose and inflation developed, although not nearly to the same extent as in recent years. The price of all commodities, including every-day consumer goods, increased1. The Government in those days had the powers necessary to meet this situation, but its use of them could be best illustrated by the attempt to ration petrol. After everybody was asked how much petrol a month they would require, ration tickets were issued. If all of those tickets had been used, about double the amount of petrol being used prior to the introduction of rationing would have been required1. Finally, the Government collapsed. I think it is true to say that this was because of the disgust at its efforts that existed within its own ranks.

Labour then came into power. The first Curtin Government had a majority in the other place, but a minority in this chamber, It carried on until it received a full mandate from the people, and Labour remained in office for the rest of the war and the immediate post-war years. During the whole of that time, supporters of the Government which is now in power sniped at the Labour Governments for its use of the national security powers. At every possible opportunity they criticized and made capital of the Government’s use of powers which they did not have the courage to use when they were in office.

I can well recall the late Senator George McLeay addressing a meeting at Glenelg, South Australia, and endeavouring to make capital of the fact that during the war years it was necessary to obtain a permit before a refrigerator could be purchased. He said that a lady down near the sea-wall had applied to a government department for permission to purchase a refrigerator and had been informed that permission could not be granted1 as she did not have a family. Subsequently, she had a child, and she re-applied, only to be met with the answer that under the regulations one child did not constitute a family. It was quite an interesting tale, told with the object of showing the result of having centralized power in Canberra. No allowance was made for the fact that if that poor lady down near the sea-wall at Glenelg were entitled to a refrigerator because she had an infant, many hundreds of thousands of other people throughout Australia would be so entitled, and that the large labour force engaged on building refrigerators for them would not be available to make munitions of war.

I recall another story. Sir Thomas Playford - he was not Sir Thomas then - told a meeting, also at Glenelg, that the centralizing of power in Canberra was having stupid results because farmers in Western Australia were being paid not to produce wheat. I was at that meeting, but not as a member of the Liberal Party. The meeting was open to the public, but obviously the South Australian Premier did not expect anybody other than members of the Liberal Party to be there. He said quite categorically that, for no reason other than the desire to control, the Commonwealth Government was paying farmers in Western Australia not to grow wheat. Those of us who were conversant with the circumstances knew that wheat was not planted in some areas of Western Australia because, owing to the exigencies of war, there was not sufficient superphosphate in Australia to allow full planting. A committee examined the position and made recommendations to the Government. It was led by Sir John Teasdale, and I do not think any one would suggest that he was a socialist or a supporter of the Labour Party. The commonsense reason for restricting the plantings of wheat was that the superphosphate available could be best utilized in the better areas, where a few pounds of superphosphate would do the work for which perhaps one hundredweight would be required in the poorer areas of Western Australia and South Australia.

I cite these two instances to show that when Labour was in office during the war it used the national security powers successfully to combat inflation. When supporters of the present Government were in office early in the war, they claimed that war was the greatest inflationary pressure that could be brought to bear on any economy and they blamed that for rising prices. I can recall, as no doubt many others can, that immediately Labour took office the price of tea dropped by about ls. 3d. per lb. and that the price of men’s shoes dropped by about £1. The Labour Government’s use of its powers no doubt irritated many people, and supporters of the present Government took advantage of that irritation and attempted to capitalize upon it to the greatest degree. Last week, when speaking in another place, the Prime Minister said that during the war the Labour Party used its powers quite correctly. But when he was seeking to curry favour with the people of Australia that same right honorable gentleman did not consider that those powers had been used correctly.

In the immediate post-war years the parties that now form the Government responded to pressure from vested interests and helped to defeat referendums that were designed to give the Commonwealth powers to control inflation. I think it is true to say that the majority of supporters of the present Government had at that time tacitly agreed that such powers were necessary in the post-war years if inflation, was to be controlled. At a conference held in Canberra between Commonwealth Ministers and representatives of the government and opposition parties in all States agreement was reached that the States should endeavour to pass legislation handing over the necessary powers to the Commonwealth. The legislation was passed in the lower House in each State but was defeated in the undemocratically elected upper Houses in Tasmania, South Australia and, I think, also Victoria. 1 can remember the Premier of South Australia, who was then plain Tom Playford, attempting to break down some of the opposition in his State to the scheme, and saying that if he had his way the powers to be granted to the Commonwealth would be much wider than those envisaged by the legislation. But following the failure of the legislation in the States, the same people who now support the Government responded to pressure from vested interests and convinced the people of Australia that it was not necessary for the Commonwealth to have these powers. It is worth while recalling that the majority of people who voted at the referendum were in favour of granting to the Commonwealth the powers sought. It was only the failure to obtain a majority of all States in favour of the scheme that defeated the referendum proposals.

Generally speaking, the same thing happened with regard to the prices referendum. I do not think that many supporters of the Government, who were then in opposition, put forward strong argument against the submission that control of prices and profits was necessary. But when the question went to the people their efforts caused the referendum proposals to be defeated. Their main argument on that occasion was not that control of prices was unnecessary but that the State had ample power to control prices. We all know the falsity of that claim. It is quite apparent now that the six separate States cannot properly control prices or profits.

I have been amused on occasions to hear honorable senators opposite endeavour to pinpoint the time when prices commenced to rise. They invariably produce statistics which purport to show that prices commenced to rise before Labour went out of office.

Senator Scott:

– That is right, is it not?

Senator RIDLEY:

– That is true. Prices commenced to rise before Labour went out of office, but not to the extent that they rose after the present Government assumed office. The steep rise in prices took place after the defeat of the prices referendum. Senator McKenna in his speech gave figures that showed how prices increased in 1949, 1950 and 1951. One thing is certain: There was no levelling out of prices. There was no control by the States; they could not stop the inflationary trend. I am sorry that Senator Wright is not in the chamber because he drew a false analogy during his speech. In 1952 and 1953 - it may have been 1951 and 1952 - the prices of primary products in this country rose to an unprecedented level.

Senator Scott:

– Are you talking about wool?

Senator RIDLEY:

– Wool and wheat. From memory I think the income of primary producers between 1939 and 1952 rose by 1,400 per cent. I do not say that in itself that rise was evil. The evil lies in the fact that following on that unprecedented rise in farm income, prices generally were allowed to rise. That very fact was used as an argument in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to defeat a wage claim that was being heard at that time by Mr. Conciliation Commissioner Galvin.

Senator Scott:

– When the Government imposed the 20 per cent, wool levy the Labour Party opposed it.

Senator RIDLEY:

– One thing that the Labour Party has done, and I recall the late Mr. Chifley saying this, is that it has never denied having sometimes made mistakes. The present Government will not admit its mistakes. That is the point I am attempting to hammer home. If the Government in 1952 had had the necessary powers to control rising prices following the boom in wool and wheat, and had failed to use them, it would have been condemned on all sides. Even without those powers the Government could have taken steps to correct the situation, but instead it fooled around. It decided to try out one of its many panaceas for the cure of inflation. It thought it would see what a bit of depression would do. It coined the word “ recession “ and introduced the horror Budget, which led to considerable unemployment in Australia. I have no doubt that if the recession, as it was called, had continued, it would have provided a cure for inflation. I think the most charitable way that I can describe the position is by saying that the Government hoped by bringing about unemployment - in other words, creating a depression - to stop inflation. That one attempt in 1952 to stop inflation was followed by the defeat of the Government’s candidate in the by-election for the blue ribbon seat of Flinders in Victoria. Inevitably, if the Government had decided to continue that policy, it would have brought inflation to a halt, but so also would have been brought to an end its occupancy of the treasury bench.

Up till that time, the term full employment had been used; thenceforth a new phrase, a high measure of employment, came into being. Since then, the measure of unemployment in Australia has been the figure supplied by the Statistician, based on the number of persons who have applied to the Commonwealth Employment Offices throughout Australia for jobs. I do not think anyone could deny my belief that no budget since brought down by this Government could truly be said to have halted or stopped inflation. It has been claimed that because there was a lower percentage of unemployment in one year than in the previous year, inflation was being controlled. However, the average rate of unemployment during the lifetime of this Government has been 6 per cent. Therefore, 1 think it follows that Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, in asserting that this Budget, having been designed to defeat inflation, will benefit all sections of the community, is wrong. The Government appears to think that the control of wages will of itself prevent a rise of prices. That argument is defeated by statistics. At one time, both the basic wage and margins payments remained static for three years, and yet prices continued to rise. I think it is axiomatic that, if wages are controlled and the amount saved on wages is allowed to increase profits, the price of an article to the consumer is the same. Furthermore, if no action is taken to prevent profits from rising by the equivalent of the saving on wages, prices rise. That is exactly what has happened. It is not the wage factor that has increased prices. The Government has failed to learn the lesson from the folly of experience that control of wages does not necessarily stop the price of commodities from rising.

This Budget appears to be .based on the old theory that if the people are starved of money the demand for goods is lessened and, in Urn, the manufacturers and the sellers of goods have to lower their prices because of the reduced demand. Sales tax was introduced for the same purpose. But an avenue of escape has remained for those who wished to use it. At the other end of the economy, people who were unable to buy goods for cash or on terms by paying a reasonable deposit, have been able to obtain their requirements on terms over a long period, at excessive rates of interest, but without deposit. Therefore, the sale of an article is not stopped; it gets into a wo ker’s home by a different method. As long as a worker is reasonably sure of remaining in employment, he resorts to any means available to him to obtain goods that will increase the standard of living in his home. Nobody can blame him for that.

All of the Government’s attempts to control inflation have been abortive. I know that I am voicing the opinion of every member of the Labour Party when I say that the Government lacks the constitutional power it needs to deal with the causes of inflation. There is an old adage to the effect that the people deserve the government they elect.

Senator Scott:

– That is why they elected this Government.

Senator RIDLEY:

– That is right, and they have got what they deserved. But that saying is like a lot of other old sayings; it is only a half-truth. It is based on the assumption that the people elect a government on the basis of the clear-cut proposals placed before them by the opposing parties. But any person who has given any thought whatever to the elections of recent years knows that the people’s decision at the polls has been based, not on the difference between the fundamental issues, but on another factor. The people have been persuaded to vote, not for the Government parties, but against the Labour Party. Of course, I realize that Government senators think that such a position is all right. However, I believe that it is an evil thing for a government to take advantage of a situation in that way, instead of legislating for the economic well-being of the great majority of the people. But for the factor I have mentioned, the people would not have returned this Government to power. That is most certainly true of the electors in the State I represent. Generally speaking, they voted against this Government at the last four elections. That was noticeably the case at the last election. I think I have expressed clearly the view of the majority of the electors of South Australia, although the position may have been somewhat different in other States.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on the motion for the printing of the Budget Papers. This is the eleventh Budget with which I have been associated, although when the last Budget was under consideration I was absent in America. The Menzies Government, which is a LiberalCountry Party coalition government, has occupied the treasury bench since 10th December, 1949. I do not think I can be contradicted when I say that tenure of office for such a long time is a very proud achievement. We have retained the confidence of the people over all those years. I think, Sir, that the people of Australia recognize that this is a good government and will see to it that we continue in office. I feel sure that the electorate will continue to place its faith in the Government parties at future elections, and that there will be sound and progressive government for a considerable time to come.

The speeches that have been made in the Senate since the motion was introduced have shown that the same old arguments on policy are taking place. We on this side of the chamber believe essentially in free enterprise. The Opposition pins its faith to government by control, as 1 think that was exemplified by the remarks of the Leader of the Oppo sition (Senator McKenna). He devoted a considerable portion of the early part of his speech to a complaint that the Government had done nothing about implementing the recommendations made in the report of the Constitutional Review Committee.

I do not know why Senator McKenna spoke on that subject, because I think it is quite unreasonable to expect the Government to have done anything about that report. After all, it is not so very long ago that the report was tabled, and before the recommendations could be implemented a referendum would have to be held so that the people could decide on the proposals for an alteration of the Constitution. I would say that the report of the committee is hardly relevant to a discussion of the Budget. I do not think it can be denied that the recommendations that have been made are extremely, debatable, to say the least. Those dealing with economic factors have very wide implications indeed, and therefore considerable time must elapse before they can be adopted either in full or in part.

Senator McKenna made reference to what he described as the gaps in the constitutional power of the Commonwealth. He said that there was no uniformity in company law, and that the Commonwealth had no control oyer capital issues, comparatively little or no control over consumer credit, very little power over restrictive trade practices, and only limited power over industrial relations. He said also that the Commonwealth’s power to control interest was limited to bank interest and did not apply to other interest rates. I read Senator McKenna’s speech over the week-end.

Senator Hendrickson:

– You have learnt something.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I agree. I found his references to those matters very interesting indeed, and 1 think we are very much indebted to him for the comprehensive way in which he discussed the subject. Whether we agree with his conclusions is another matter altogether, but we are indebted to him for his work on the subject, and I give him due credit for it.

I do not think it can be denied that if the Commonwealth Government had all these powers vested in it, the task of controlling the economy would” be simplified.

If the Commonwealth Government had power over the subjects to which I have just referred, that would make the control of the economy comparatively simple, because the Government could exercise an iron control over virtually every facet of the economy. But there is another side to the picture. Such powers would give enormous authority to a centralized government.

Senator Ormonde:

– The British Government has such powers.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am not discussing the British Government.

Senator Hendrickson:

– This Government had those powers in war-time.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I readily agree with Senator Hendrickson when he says that these powers were exercised in war-time. There is no question about that. But we are not at war now, we are living in a time of peace. The people showed that they were highly resistant to the continued1 exercise of the hide-bound controls that were used during the war. I think it could be fairly said that those controls, if re-introduced now, could put a brake on the progress of the economy, as they did most effectively in the immediate post-war period. That is why the people of Australia wanted to be released from the controls that were in existence during the war and during the period immediately following the war. That is why I say that Senator McKenna’s arguments have broken down. He said that by having these controls we could perhaps arrest inflation, and that the country would make greater progress if power to use the controls were vested in a centralized government in Canberra. If the Commonwealth Government were given these powers, there is no question, to my mind, that virtually the whole power of government would rest with the Commonwealth and that the State governments would become more or less a thing of the past.

Senator McKenna made the point that the Constitution was outmoded. I have heard honorable senators opposite refer to it as a horse and buggy Constitution. Notwithstanding that, I do not think it can be denied that we have made progress since the advent of this Government. We have evidence everywhere which makes it quite clear that Australia has made remarkable progress in the last decade or so. We have made great progress in every direction. It is necessary only to note the tremendous industrialization that has taken place throughout Australia to appreciate that that is so. Australia is one of the great trading nations of the world. The fact that it is amongst the first ten or eleven trading nations is a fine achievement. Our factory production has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. Our natural resources have been developed greatly. Our mines also have been developed considerably during the last ten years. Our primary production has increased. I do not know the extent of the increase relative to the number of people engaged in primary production, but I do not think it will be denied that the increase of primary products has been nothing short of remarkable. All our primary industries are now producing much more than they were before the war and! for some time following it.

Senator Wright:

– And they are getting no more for it.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– That may be so, but that is a matter completely outside our power to decide, as Senator Wright will agree. The fact is that we are increasing the production of primary products in spite of difficulties. I do not think any honorable senator will deny that during the last ten years or so remarkable progress in all fields of production has been made. So, despite the fact that we have a so-called outmoded Constitution, we are still capable of making very great progress in the development of our country.

There is no question in my mind that we shall have to give attention to the matters that have been recommended by the Constitutional Review Committee. I had the opportunity at the weekend to read portion of the report of the committee, particularly the recommendation relating to the economic sector. I do not question Senator McKenna’s sincerity when he says that, regardless of the political colour of the government in power, he believes that the recommendations of the committee should be given effect. But whether f agree with him or whether I do not is immaterial, because that matter will not be decided by us. Instead, it will be decided by the people of Australia. Before the recommendations of the committee may be submitted to the people they have to be discussed by the Government, and legislation providing for the holding of a referenda will have to be enacted. Bearing in mind that the Australian people are rather disposed to resist changes, particularly of the Constitution, it seems that it will not be an easy matter to have some of the committee’s proposals implemented.

From discussions that I have had at various times with members of State Parliaments, I know that they do not view with equanimity certain of the proposals of the committee.

Senator Ormonde:

– You are doing all right under the present system.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Yes, I agree with my friend opposite that we are doing all right, even under the present system, lt is debatable whether we would do better under the proposals outlined by the Constitutional Review Committee. Nevertheless, I have a completely open mind in regard to many of the committee’s recommendations. I assure you, Sir, that even though I might be personally inconvenienced by the adoption of some of the committee’s proposals, such as those relating to the Senate, I shall have no hesitation in supporting them if I think that their adoption would be in the best interests of Australia. Despite limited alterations of the Constitution, there has been a considerable increase in the power exercised by federal authorities. Having regard to the financial power that is being exercised at the present time, I do not think that that contention can be denied. The fact that the Commonwealth Government is the taxing authority and exercises the greatest financial power over the economy, is resented very much by certain State governments, including some of the State Labour governments.

Having dealt with that question - somewhat cursorily, I admit - I turn to the Budget, although it is not my intention to traverse the Budget’s proposals at great length. Most of us recognize that the national accounts, as outlined in the Budget, are extremely complex and require very close study before they can be understood. I think that not many private individuals in the community understand the national accounts as they are presented in the Budget, either now or in the reason ably close past. I do not claim to be an accountant, but I take what 1 consider to be a reasonably intelligent interest in the Budget Papers. I must confess that, on reading them, I find myself in rather deep water. It seems to me that only a qualified accountant could have a proper understanding of the Budget Papers, and I think that even he might have difficulty in fully understanding them.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Either an accountant or a mathematician.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– An accountant or a mathematician, as Senator O’Flaherty says. I do not claim to be a mathematician or an accountant, or to be well versed in book-keeping, and I certainly find the form of presentation of the national accounts extremely complex. They seem to be a merger of various funds which, on occasion, are drawn upon and balanced. In the result, it is rather difficult for one to appreciate what it is all about.

Since I have been a member of this Parliament I have gained a rough idea of the way in which the national accounts are presented and how they function. I have been led to the conclusion that there is no fundamental change in the presentation of the Budget Papers this year. The form of presentation seems to be much the same as in previous years, except that emphasis has been placed on the raising of money by taxation rather than by loans. There is no question that a great deal more emphasis is now being placed on the raising of funds for capital expenditure by means of taxation than was previously the case. Almost all the loan funds that have been available in recent years have been placed in the hands of the States. However, a certain proportion of the States’ capital expenditure has been provided by the Commonwealth from taxation collections.

Senator Scott:

– Do we use any loan money?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Of course we do. I refer to loans that we obtain overseas. As I said earlier, for many years now almost all the loan funds that have been raised in Australia have been placed in the hands of the States.

Senator Scott:

– How do we apply the loan money that comes from overseas?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– The loan moneys that we receive from overseas have an important bearing on our overseas balances. If we had not been successful in raising funds overseas and in having such a large inflow of capital, our overseas balances would not be in their present healthy condition. I reiterate that the loan moneys that have been raised on the internal market have almost entirely been made available to State governments.

I also said earlier that some of the Commonwealth’s taxation collections have been allocated to the States for capital expenditure. It has been suggested that the States should be relieved of the burden of paying interest on moneys that are raised by way of taxation. I do not agree with that suggestion. In the final analysis, the Commonwealth has to bear the responsibility for raising loan funds, and I do not see why the States should not pay interest on the money they receive from the Commonwealth.

Senator Lillico:

– It is free to the Commonwealth.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– That may be so, but the Commonwealth Government has the final responsibility for raising loan funds.

Senator Wright:

– But the same people who pay the taxes pay the interest that the States are charged.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I know an argument against my contention can be put up, but if the States raised this money by way of loans they certainly would have to pay interest on it. I believe that where the Commonwealth bears the final responsibility for the raising of loans, it should be able to claim interest on the money that it makes available.

Senator Wood:

– Why should it?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I will allow Senator Wood to develop his argument when and where he pleases. He can give me his answer to the question later. Anyhow, regardless of the drying up of the loan reservoir, to which fact the Opposition has referred times without number without giving a satisfactory reason for the drying up, money has been and will continue to be made available for capital expenditure throughout Australia, irrespective of whether it is incurred by the Commonwealth Government or the States. The money is there.

Certainly we have raised money by means of taxation, but I do not see anything wrong with that. If we do not raise money by means of taxation we will have to raise it in. some other way. In other words, if the people do not lend their money to the Commonwealth Government, we must raise the necessary funds by means of taxation. It is necessary to continue expending money on capital works, whether they be Commonwealth or State works. It is necessary to invest and reinvest funds in the development of the great activities that are the function of government. As I indicated a moment ago, where we cannot raise this money by way of loans the only alternative is to raise it by means of taxation.

Senator Lillico:

– By forced loans.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Yes, by forced loans, if the honorable senator likes to put it that way. At least, the money is raised and is available for the necessary expenditure.

I said earlier that the national accounts were Very involved and complex. There seems to be a certain amount of juggling of accounts. I use that expression advisedly; I do not wish to imply that any methods are employed which can be looked upon with suspicion. Indeed, I know that no such methods are employed. But I invite honorable senators to look at page 10 of the statements appended to the printed copy of the Treasurer’s Budget speech. If any honorable senator can give me a clear explanation of the information on that page, I shall be very much indebted to him. I certainly do not intend to try to offer an explanation. There are transfers from one fund to another. Honorable senators will see that reference is made to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve - a fund that has been established to provide funds for loan expenditure. As I said, I do not intend to try to explain the information contained there; I simply say that beyond doubt the money is available, that these reserve funds are there and that they can be drawn upon to finance capital works for the coming year.

A lot of nonsense has been spoken about taxation. In my opinion, the taxation measures adopted by this Government do not differ very materially from those adopted by the previous Government.

Senator Wright:

– The honorable senator is not claiming much virtue in that, is he?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– No. I quite agree with the honorable senator. The Government’s taxation measures are very involved indeed, as was indicated in a recent statement in the “ Taxpayers’ Bulletin “, which is issued by the Taxpayers Association.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– Does the honorable senator intend to quote from that statement?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I do not intend to quote from any document. I repeat that I believe that the taxation measures adopted by the Treasurer in this year’s Budget are on all fours with those adopted in previous budgets.

There has been quite a lot of loose talk about some of the taxation measures by which the Government raises its revenue. I think it is essential for us to look at this matter on a broad scale. I personally believe we have to examine the whole field of taxation. I do not think it can be doubted that if taxation in one particular field is applied more heavily than it should be, the effect on the economy is certainly undesirable. We know from actual experience that if income tax is applied too heavily it has an adverse effect on incentive. We know that certain other types of taxation if applied too heavily can also adversely affect the economy. So, the taxation measures which are presented to us each year are based largely on experience and on the contention that it is wise to spread the effects of taxation over a fairly wide field.

Income tax is, I think, the fairest tax. I believe in a graduated scale of income tax rates, but I do not blind myself to the fact that if income tax is applied too heavily incentive is restricted or destroyed and production levels can be very seriously affected. So, while we rely chiefly on income tax as the main source of revenue, it has to be looked at fairly carefully. No government with any judgment at all would adopt some of the suggestions that have been outlined in this chamber in regard to income tax.

Senator Cole said that his party would abolish sales tax. I am not one of the people who subscribe to that theory. I believe that sales tax has its part in the financial set up of Australia. I know what a potent weapon it is, if used in a sensible way. One need only look at the experience of other countries to see that. We know that indirect taxation is widely used in other countries, including America and the United Kingdom. My experience in America made it quite clear to me that a considerable section pf the revenue of that country is raised by indirect taxes. When you pay your bill after eating in a restaurant, you find a certain percentage added to it in the form of an indirect tax. We do not carry our revenue earning measures to that extreme in Australia. I believe Australia’s sales tax laws have been sensibly administered over the years. Some sections of the community will always criticize sales tax, but I believe it has its part in our economy and our financial set-up. I would be loath to see the Government abolish sales tax. It is spread over the whole community; no one can evade it. There are always some people who are seeking to evade income tax, but sales tax cannot be evaded. It has to be met and it is really valuable for that reason alone.

Sales tax is also a very important factor in safeguarding the economy in that a certain industry can be controlled by the application of a heavier sales tax where the Government wants men and materials diverted to more essential industries. It was used in that way by the present Government some years ago.

Senator Wright:

– In the case of the motor car industry, and what was the effect?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– That might seem to be a contradiction of my argument on the part of Senator Wright. He is not giving me any great help.

Senator Wright:

– At least I am showing some interest.’

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I agree that the honorable senator is showing some interest in what I am saying. Generally speaking, sales tax is a weapon which can be used by a government to direct men and materials into the more essential industries. I believe that was proved some years ago when we found developing, what was termed at the time, a milk bar economy. Very heavy sales tax was applied on luxury goods, with salutary effects on the general economy.

I come now to the vexed question of payroll tax. It is the tax I like least and I should like to see something done to reduce its impact; but that cannot be done overnight. I should like to see an extension of the exemptions from this tax, and perhaps finally its abolition. But we must realize that if a tax which raises over £50,000,000 is abolished, that amount must be raised by some other means. As Senator Mattner said, if the Government abolished pay-roll tax and sales tax it would have to increase income tax by 50 per cent. What effect would that have on incentive to produce, to progress and to expand? It would have a most deleterious effect on production throughout Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Surely not an increase of 50 per cent, in income tax!

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I am quoting what Senator Mattner said. I have some regard for his figures and his facts. I have quoted what I believe he said, and I do not think he will deny it. He said quite clearly, if I remember correctly, that if pay-roll tax and sales tax were abolished there would have to be an increase of 50 per cent, in income tax.

Senator Mattner:

– That is correct.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I do not know whether that calculation is correct. I think it could be approximately right.

One could speak at quite considerable length on taxation measures. Australia has had its ups and downs in the field of taxation and I believe we have faced the situation quite effectively down through the years. I recall some taxation measures the Government introduced which incurred the hostility, not only of the Opposition, but also of large sections of the community. I remember the wool sales deduction which was referred to this afternoon by Senator Ridley. I do not think it can be denied, on reflection, that that was a very wise tax indeed. The wool-growers themselves acknowledged afterwards that the tax had relieved them of considerable embarrassment in the following taxation year. I say that we faced that question quite courageously. We imposed the tax because we thought that it was right, and this action paid off in the end.

I recall a certain taxation measure applying to private companies that was brought down by the Government. It was not received with any degree of pleasure by some sections of the community, but I believe that the tax was imposed quite rightly. The former Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden, came in for a good deal of criticism from certain individuals and one section of the press for placing on private companies an undistributed profits tax. The tax was very much resented by those companies, but Sir Arthur stuck to his guns. Because of a loop-hole private companies were paying smaller dividends than were justified, and the extra money was salted away. The funds that the private companies salted away were distributed, free of tax, at a later date. This loop-hole was closed to them.

Senator Wright:

– It was only a device so that the Taxation Branch would not have to trace the shareholders of the companies.

Senator HANNAFORD:

– Let Senator Wright tell the Senate all about it when he speaks on the Budget. I believe that the measure was justified because it closed a loop-hole that was being exploited by private companies. Retention of funds to a certain level was allowed. This allowance was adequate, and the companies have since been carrying on quite successfully, paying dividends more in keeping with their profits. They have carried on without any great difficulty since the implementation of that legislation. That is just an example of the way in which the Government has applied taxation measures with courage and foresight.

I do not want to occupy much more of the Senate’s time in discussing the Budget. I believe that the Government has brought down a sensible Budget. We had reached a stage where certain pressures were developing in the economy. We are using budgetary proposals to relieve some of the pressures that have made themselves felt during the last twelve months or so. The time will come when it will be acknowledged by all and sundry that the Government’s financial proposals are sensible. These measures will not put too great a restriction on expansion. They are designed to put a damper, to some extent, on too rapid an expansion of the economy. I think it has been clear to most thinking people that in the last twelve months there has been an inflationary tendency. I support the economists who believe that this situation can be remedied, at least to some extent, by the application of taxation, the balancing of the Budget, the application of certain controls over credit, and taking some regard of arbitration proceedings. In the basic wage hearing, the Government put its case quite fairly. I am glad that the court found in favour of the Government.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Did you hear what the Minister for the Navy said this afternoon?

Senator HANNAFORD:

– I heard the Minister. I believe that Senator Gorton answered the question very well indeed. In the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission we have an independent body, and the Government is entitled to put its case in regard to a question before that commission. The commission heard all sides of the question, and the fact that it decided against a basic wage increase indicates that it does look at a matter from all sides. It came to the conclusion that the economy was not in a position to stand the impact of a higher basic wage. The budgetary proposals, the control exercised through the Reserve Bank, and the import policy, will slowly but surely have the effect of arresting the inflationary trend that has been exacerbated in recent months. The people will recognize that this is a sound Budget, introduced by a government that will continue with the fine, progressive policy that it has followed over the years.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

.- 1 want to take up on the note on which Senator Hannaford concluded, namely, the Government’s intervention before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the recent basic wage case. Earlier this afternoon the Minister far the Navy (Senator Gorton) referred to that case, and although 1 realize that my hearing sometimes lets me down, I do not think that it did on this occasion. Senator Gorton said that the Government placed evidence before the commission only to show how the economy of the country would be affected if there were an increase in the basic wage, and that the Government did not oppose any increase. I join issue with Senator Gorton and with Senator

Hannaford on that statement. I have a copy of the reasons for judgment issued by the president of the commission, Kirby, C.J., on 12th April, 1960, and I crave the indulgence of the Senate to read a passage in order to show that Senator Gorton and Senator Hannaford did not correctly state the position -

In these proceedings the Commonwealth Government intervened in the public interest in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1959. In addition appearances were announced for the States of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Commonwealth Government on this occasion presented, as it has done in the past, a detailed and useful analysis of the economic situation of Australia, together with comments on fiscal and budgetary policy.

This is the important point -

In addition to this, it announced its opposition to the unions’ application both to restore automatic quarterly adjustments and for an increase in the basic wage.

I fail to see, in view of that statement by Mr. Justice Kirby, how Senator Hannaford and Senator Gorton can assert that this Government did not oppose an increase in the basic wage. The judgment continues -

The State of South Australia presented material to the commission to show the effect which wage increases would have on its finances and opposed the unions’ application.

That was a Liberal Government. The judgment continues -

The States of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia presented information to show how the finances of those States would be affected by wage increases, but neither supported nor opposed the claims of the applicants. The State of Tasmania indicated that it supported the application for restoration of quarterly adjustments . . .

The Tasmanian Government, incidentally, is a Labour Government. It was quite prepared to support the unions’ claim in relation to quarterly cost-of-living adjustments. In an agreement entered into with the trade union movement in Tasmania, the Labour Government pays quarterly costofliving adjustments to workers under federal awards employed on government projects.

Senator Scott:

– Did you read what your Premier said at the Premiers’ Conference?

Senator POKE:

– Never mind that. I am telling the Senate what has happened. 1 am not concerned with what the Premier of Tasmania may have said on some occasion. I am outlining what has happened in respect of quarterly cost-of-living adjustments in Tasmania.

I cannot agree with Senator Hannaford’s contention that the Budget is a sensible one. I think that every honorable senator on this side of the chamber, together with all other members of the Australian Labour Party, would disagree with Senator Hannaford in this regard. The Budget is far from sensible. I do not know how long it will take to prove the validity of Senator Hannaford’s contention. It certainly will not be proved in the foreseeable future. All members of the Labour Party will agree with me that the Budget, far from being sensible, is dull, unjust and totally inadequate, particularly in its treatment of pensioners. No enthusiasm has been displayed about the Budget by Government supporters. I think that Senator Hannaford is trying to put some life into what has been a dull debate. He is trying to show that the Budget is a sensible one, whereas in fact it does not make sense in any regard. It has been noticeable that most speakers on the Government side have rallied to the defence of the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). They have praised his efforts in producing this Budget. Why have they done that? I suggest that the reason may be that in their hearts they know that the Budget is dull, inadequate and unjust. But perhaps there is another reason. Some honorable senators opposite who sit on the back benches may have praised the Budget in the hope that in the not-far-distant future they will sit on the front bench and may even have a portfolio. There may be method in their madness.

Senator Ormonde:

– They will soon be over here.

Senator POKE:

– They will not be over on this side of the chamber until after next year. We hope, and expect, that after the end of next year honorable senators opposite will be sitting on this side of the chamber and that they will have no opportunity to obtain portfolios for a good many years.

Senator Scott:

– That is a nice thought.

Senator POKE:

– That is so. We are entitled to our nice thoughts as well as Senator Scott. I seem to recollect some reference to donkeys earlier to-day.

The Government has shown no positive action in this Budget. No doubt it is designed to curb inflation. However, I and my colleagues are confident that it will do nothing towards curing inflation. The miserable increase in pensions is probably an endeavour by the Government to compensate pensioners in some way for the inflationary trend that exists to-day and which this Budget will not and cannot cure. I feel that inflation in a small way is not quite as bad as depression. As I see the situation, we live in either a state of inflation or a state of depression. In 1952, we were living in a state of mild depression. The Government introduced its “ horror “ Budget at that time with the idea of creating a depression, which it referred to as a recession. The “ horror “ Budget was designed to bring about a mild depression, and it is much better to live in a state of mild inflation than one of depression.

Senator Scott:

– Why did the Government introduce the “ horror “ budget?

Senator POKE:

– It was introduced to bring about a depression because there were shortages at that time.

Senator Scott:

– We had inflation at that time.

Senator POKE:

– Galloping inflation, which the Government endeavoured to turn into galloping depression. It failed to achieve either purpose but it did throw many people out of work. More people were out of work at that time than at any previous time since 1944 or 1945.

Senator Scott:

– Nineteen forty-nine.

Senator POKE:

Senator Scott may have it his way if he likes. I say that more people were out of work in 1952 than at any time since 1944 or 1945.

Apparently this Government takes particular delight in penalizing two sections of the community. I have already referred to one section - the wage-earners. My contention in respect of the Government’s attitude to the wage-earners is proved by the intervention in the recent basic wage case. It is fairly evident that the Government will oppose any further increases in. the basic wage.

Sirring suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator POKE:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was speaking about the basic wage case. I propose to continue along those lines for a few moments. The Treasurer, in his Budget speech delivered on 16th August in another place, referred to the main courses of action that were proposed in February in connexion with economic policy. He said -

One was to strengthen resistance to the rise in prices and costs and, in particular, to prevent large increases in the factors which affect costs generally. That was why the Government intervened in the basic wage proceedings and advised the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of some of the consequences of granting further large wage increases before the economy had had time to absorb those made not long before.

The Government itself referred to the cost factor. It is very significant to note that Dr. Coombs, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, commented at Adelaide that whoever controlled the economy controlled costs. His statement was as follows: -

It is clear that, in a wide range of costs throughout the economy, prices are determined by management rather than by marked prices. This has developed into the emergence of strongly monopolistic elements in our economy characterised, among other things, by gentlemen’s agreements on price policies and successful take-over bids.

I think that that statement by Dr. Coombs shows definitely that one of the reasons why the cost structure of Australia is in the condition it is in to-day is that gentlemen’s agreements do exist in relation to prices. Take the electrical trades business, for instance. We know that if the gentlemen’s agreement in relation to the selling prices of all electrical goods is not observed by a retailer, his supplies are cut off. This situation is due to the failure of this Government to introduce a bill in relation to restrictive trade practices, which it promised to do when the Parliament assembled early this year.

I mentioned before the suspension of the sitting that, in my opinion, the Government had hit at two particular types of people, the wage-earners and the pensioners. From the statement made by Dr. Coombs that I have mentioned and the portions of the judgment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that I have cited, I think it. is evident that the Government is doing what I have mentioned; it is hitting at those classes of people. I refer again to the judgment that was given in the basic wage case. I remind the Senate that the Federal Government intervened in that hearing. The commission stated -

We accept the submission made by the private employers and by the Commonwealth Government that we should not award an increase in the basic wage, bearing in mind that employees under federal award have in the past twelve months received substantial increases in both basic and secondary wages.

That bears out the contention I made before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, that is, that the commission gave a decision in favour of the Federal Government as the result of its interference, or its submission to the tribunal in that particular case.

Two members of the Liberal Party in Tasmania, namely, Senator Lillico and Senator Wright - I notice that the former is now in the chamber and the last-named is not - recently made an attack on the arbitration set-up in this country. But they condemned the arbitration set-up for a different reason from the one for which I have condemned it. They have condemned it because they do not think there is sufficient political interference with it - or, at least, that is what their condemnation amounts to. I think I have shown by my remarks that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, particularly in the last basic wage case, has been subjected1 to interference by this Government, yet Senators Lillico and Wright condemn the arbitration set-up because they say there is no political interference with it. I am quoting the purport of what they have said, not their exact words. Perhaps Senator Lillico will clarify the position when he enters the debate.

In the basic wage case, an which the commission refused to restore quarterly adjustments and to increase the basic wage, we know perfectly well that, under the C series retail prices index the unions sought to give the workers a just award. There has again been a great increase in the C series retail price index. In one State where a Liberal government is in power - I refer to Victoria - there has been an all-time record increase of 18s. a week in the C series index, which gauges the quarterly movement of prices. Liberal governments in both the Federal and the State spheres have failed miserably all along the line to stabilize prices and costs and to halt the inflationary trends that are in evidence to-day. The commission, by its decision, has continued to deny to the workers any share of the increased productivity in industry over the past ten years. There is no doubt whatever that the productivity of industry has increased considerably during that period. It is difficult to understand1 why the Federal Government intervened to oppose any increase in the basic wage when it could be proved conclusively that the productivity of industry had risen and the cost of living had risen, and that there had been a decrease in the effective margin of workers throughout industry.

I think that the matter of excess profits is one that should give this Parliament a fair amount of concern. I urge the Government, quite sincerely, to introduce an excess profits tax. Quite a number of persons are making what I believe to be an excess profit. For instance, last year General Motors-Holden’s Limited made a profit of some £15,000,000. That profit represents 875 per cent, of the company’s ordinary capital. Dividends amounting to 425 per cent, have been paid to overseas investors. General Motors-Holden’s Limited has operated in Australia fo only a short period, but during that time the company has raked off £50,000,000 in profit. That is a large profit on the original investment of £1,700,000, which, it should be remembered, did not come from overseas but was raised from the Commonwealth Bank by way of a loan. The company having made a considerable profit on i;s original capital, it is pleasing to note that it intends now to expend £15,000,000 on further expansion, because that will provide more work for Australian workers in the States where the company intends to expand its activities. Another company which has made considerable profits during the past twelve months is the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. It has made a profit in excess of £14,000,000 from its mining and other undertakings.

I think that the profits of those two companies provide clear evidence that an excess profits tax is necessary. There is no doubt whatever that the levying of such a tax would permit the Government to ease the burden laid on the people by ihe sales tax and the pay-roll tax. I do not say that the levying of an excess profits tax would enable the Government to abolish the sales tax to-day, but it would enable the Government to ease the sales tax burden, which is now borne mainly by the family man, who is the man we should feel most concerned about. The man who has three, four, five and six children to keep is the man hardest hit by the sales tax. The latest figures I have been able to obtain show that during the financial year 1956-57 78 companies made a profit of £1,000,000 or more, lt appears that the Government is not prepared under any circumstances to introduce an excess prof,s tax. So one can only conclude that it is interested in protecting the monopolies of this country and in trying to stabilize the economy by opposing basic wage increases and by keeping down the pensions paid to invalids and aged people.

I should like to touch upon one or two other matters. No increase has been made in child endowment since this Government look office in 1941. The payment of 10s. a week for a second child and subsequent children is the payment that was made at that time. Admittedly, this Government did introduce a payment of 5s. for a first child, but I do not regard that as an increase; it was merely an extension of child endowment. I feel that, because of the decrease that has taken place in the value of money during the period that this Government has been in office, something should have been done to help the family man by increasing child endowment.

Another matter which has caused me serious concern is that this Government has not seen fit to increase the funeral benefit provided under the Social Services Act. The funeral benefit now is £10, as it was when this Government took office. We know that any sort of reasonable burial to-day costs £50 or £60. At any rate, that is the case in Tasmania. Take the case of an elderly couple, without relatives, who have to depend on their pensions. An amount of £10 only is paid by the Government towards the funeral expenses of one of those pensioners who dies. The undertaker endeavours to get from the other pensioner the difference between what the Government pays and the full cost of the funeral. I feel, Mr. Acting President, that this Budget could very well have provided for an increase in that social service benefit.

Whilst I am dealing with social service benefits, 1 will give the Government credit for making some effort - it is only a very small effort, a mere token effort - to ease the means test. The means test has been the subject of much discussion. All political parties have been concerned about it over a period of years, but not very much has been done about it by this Government. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) stated that it would cost £130,000,000 to abolish the means test completely. That may be so, but it is difficult to understand why this Government has not done more about the matter. The amelioration which the Government proposes under this Budget will cost £4,000,000 in a full year, lt is therefore, a paltry contribution to the complete abolition of the means test; it goes only 3 per cent, of the way. We remember that in 1949 the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, stated that if his party were successful it would abolish the means test before the next election. At that time it was anticipated that the next election would be held in 1952, but a double dissolution interfered with the normal sequence of elections. The Government has had sufficient time, since the double dissolution, to abolish the means test, thereby honouring one of the promises it made prior to its election to office in 1 949.

I come now to a matter which causes me some concern and which I have mentioned in this chamber previously. I refer to the purchase of dentures from dental mechanics. Only a few months ago, the Minister for Social Services was approached with a request that people in Tasmania who purchased dentures from registered dental mechanics should be allowed to claim the cost of the dentures as a deduction from income tax, as are those who purchase dentures from qualified dentists, lt is ironic that the Government should allow a taxation concession in the one case and not in the other. Under the Tasmanian Dental Mechanics Act, dental mechanics are permitted to trade direct with the public, subject to certain safeguards which are always strictly policed. A worthwhile service has thus been provided for the taxpayers of Tasmania. I cannot understand why the Commonwealth Government will not extend the tax concession to people who purchase their dentures from registered dental mechanics.

I think it was Senator Benn who referred this afternoon to the practice of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department of endeavouring to compel people, who wish to terminate a telephone connexion, to continue to use the service. Similar incidents have occurred in Tasmania. For instance, a subscriber who has wished to have his telephone disconnected because of the increased charges, has been told: “ All right. You can have the service discontinued, but you must remember that your contract was for a period of five years “ - or six, seven or ten years, as the case may be - “ and you are responsible for the rent of your telephone for that period. We will discontinue your service, but you will still have to pay the rent for the remainder of the contract period.” The subscriber has then considered it not worth while to discontinue the service, since he has to pay the rent in any event. I think that is wrong. Many of the people affected are wage-earners, and in some instances pensioners, who cannot afford the cost of the rent for the full period of the contract.

Many things are done by the Postal Department which do not make sense to the layman. Let me refer to a case which I took up on behalf of a telephone subscriber who wanted his telephone repaired. The journey to his home involved the mechanic in travelling 144 miles. Apparently, the department did not check with the subscriber to see whether there would be any one at home when the mechanic arrived, with the consequence that when the mechanic reached the subscriber’s home there was no one in the house and his trip was wasted. The subscriber was told that before the repairs could be effected he would have to pay the cost involved in the journey of the mechanic to his home and back to the depot. It probably would have cost the department nothing to ascertain from the subscriber whether or not he would be at home when the mechanic called. The department seems to fall down occasionally on small matters such as that, with the result that subscribers are involved in additional expense.

I wish to raise again, Mr. Deputy President, the subject of a zone allowance for the residents of King Island, a matter that I have previously brought to the notice of the Government but about which nothing has been done so far. I shall continue to raise it on every occasion that I can do so because I think it is a matter that requires attention. I realize that the residents of King Island do not suffer from adverse climatic conditions as do residents of other areas where zone allowances apply, but they certainly suffer the disability of high freight rates and travelling costs. I point out that many wage-earners go to King Island to work on the soldier settlements there. I suggest that it would be reasonable for the Government to give them and the other residents of the island the benefit of a zone allowance in respect of their income tax. I sincerely trust that by the time the next Budget is being prepared the Government will have seen its way to do something in this regard.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

.- Mr. Deputy President, I commence by saying that I am as prone to err as is any other human being; I do not claim to be any exception. But I can say, I think quite confidently, that I have never yet reached such a state of downright imbecility that I would say definitely that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be re-constituted because it is not sufficiently subject to political interference. It seems to me to be wholly improper that Senator Poke’s comment should be recorded in “ Hansard “ for all time; there is not a scintilla of truth in it. Senator Wright may speak for himself, but I am perfectly certain that he did not make such a statement either.

What I did say was that in my opinion the commission should be re-constituted. I believe that such a terrific responsibility in relation to the Australian economy should not be in the hands of three men. I also said - and I repeat it - that I do not think membership of the commission should be the prerogative of legal men. I believe that it should be more broadly based and that it should be composed of people with commercial and industrial experience. For Senator Poke to say that both Senator Wright and I objected to the commission because it was not sufficiently subject to political interference is an absolute travesty of the truth.

Having said that, I now wish to say that I agree with something that the honorable senator said.

Senator Poke:

– You want two bob each way!

Senator LILLICO:

– I was just about to speak about an entirely different matter. I shall return to the subject with which I was dealing and say that only a man suffering from some kind of hallucination could have attributed to Senator Wright and myself the statement that we objected to the commission because it was not sufficiently subject to political interference.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But it is subject to interference.

Senator LILLICO:

– We have heard a bit about that this afternoon. It seems to me to be perfectly competent for the Commonwealth Government, which after all is supposed to have a far-reaching influence on the Australian economy, to go to the commission and to express its views about the effect any action taken by the commission might have on the economy.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But what about when the ship-owners want to raise their freight rates?

Senator LILLICO:

– The honorable senator has not spoken yet during this debate.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But I am asking you that question now.

Senator LILLICO:

– The ship-owners raise their freight rates very largely for the reason I shall outline. Not long ago, at a port where I live, six ships were tied up for two or three days because one man had to handle a greasy rope without gloves. If the honorable senator expects that sort of thing to continue without having dearer freight rates, he is living in a very different world from that in which the rest of us are living.

Senator Sandford:

– Would you handle a greasy rope without gloves?

Senator LILLICO:

– I would not tie up six ships for that reason. As one of my colleagues has just suggested, I think I should handle the honorable senator without gloves. During this debate we have not heard a lot about the impact of this Budget on the economy. A great deal of time has been devoted to suggested amendments of the Constitution. I was particularly interested in what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) had to say on the matter. He said -

If the Government’s power in that respect were curtailed by the High Court, why not ask the State governments to refer power to the Commonwealth? If that failed, why not do the democratic thing-

I was particularly interested in the word “ democratic “ - and put the position frankly before the people and let them take the responsibility for curing it?

I cannot help thinking that there are some people in this chamber who have the idea that you can sit at the top of a tree, that you can pull strings and control this, that and the other thing, and in that way put value back into the £1 and thus curb inflation. They seem to scout the fact that the putting of value into the £1 and the curing of inflation are very largely dependent upon the concerted efforts of all the people. In other words, if they do not put value into the £1 they cannot get it out.

We have heard about these alleged cures for many years. Away back in 1944, the same cry was raised, and it was said that there should be a greater aggregation of power at Canberra; otherwise there would be stagnation, depression and unemployment, and that it would be impossible to place in employment the men who returned from the war. We have heard about all those things, but honorable senators opposite seem to be blind to the fact that in the final analysis our prosperity depends upon the concerted efforts of the people. I repeat that if those efforts are not forthcoming and if people do not put value into the £1, they cannot get it out.

Senator Sandford:

– But Bob Menzies was going to put value into the £1. What did he do about it?

Senator LILLICO:

– That was before my time. Right down at rock bottom, that is the position. Unless wage rises are accompanied by an increase in production, we only add figures to figures and no real value acclues to the wage-earner. The sooner the people and the trade unions wake up to that fact, the better it will be for this country.

I was very interested indeed in Senator McKenna’s remarks about the reference of power to the Commonwealth Government. Having regard to those who sit on my left and on my right, I approach this subject with a good deal of trepidation. But at times probably even a layman’s opinion in these matters is worth something. The Tasmanian Legislative Council was castigated for the action it took in the matter. It is true that there was a meeting here in Canberra of the Premiers and Leaders of the Opposition of all the States, and of representatives of the Commonwealth Government, and that they arrived at certain conclusions. After conferring for two days, or three days at the most, they recommended the reference to the Commonwealth of fourteen far-reaching heads of power. Of those fourteen heads of power Billy Hughes said, “ If anything lies outside them, give it a name “. He went on to say, “ We come into this place and we propose to disembowel, to eviscerate the Constitution, and at the same time pose as federalists “.

Let me tell honorable senators that the acceptance of that 1944 powers referendum would have meant unification. This afternoon I heard this question asked: “ What is wrong with that? Great Britain has a unitary form of government.” Great Britain is admirably suited to a unitary form of government. It is a small, compact country with a concentrated population, and is admirably suited to such a form of government. So is New Zealand. I verily believe that this country, with its wide expanses and its varying conditions, is certainly not suited to a unitary form of government. In fact, I should like to see more States in Australia. I should like to see parts of New South Wales divorced from the influence of Sydney, and part of Queensland given its own State government. Some people in Queensland feel they have little in common with a government which is 1,000 or 1,500 miles away from them. I firmly believe that the wider the functions of democracy are diffused the more control the people have over it. I am certain that it would be a sorry day for this country if all the functions of government were concentrated here in Canberra. Some years ago President Coolidge said that a centralized government is too far away to be responsive to local conditions and act accordingly, and so it is.

Senator Ormonde:

– What about the national outlook?

Senator LILLICO:

– The honorable senator talks about the national outlook. National matters are better administered by this Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that is why it was set up. But I do not believe that this Parliament should take over those matters that can best be administered by the government on the spot - those local matters which so closely affect the people. Honorable senators opposite want to introduce a unitary form of government, which is just the rock on which Australia will perish.

It is true that in 1944, under the emotions and stress of war, the Premiers and Leaders of the Oppositions of the States - in fact, all who attended the conference - agreed that these powers should be ceded by the States to the Commonwealth by the reference method, as they called it. However, after the delegates went home and after they had had time to realize the full implications of what they had done, there was a tremendous amount of heartburning about the reference of power by act of the State parliaments. The Tasmanian Government was very partial to the idea; it fought all along the line to bring about this reference of power to Canberra. For that purpose the State Government introduced several bills into the Legislative Council. I recall the first occasion the leader of the government in that chamber immediately moved the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the bill could be dealt with forthwith, in spite of the fact that its implications were so farreaching and it entailed, not the alteration, but almost the destruction of the Constitution.

Senator Vincent:

– Which power was to be referred?

Senator LILLICO:

– The fourteen points, in 1944. Bill Hughes said, “If anything lies outside them, give it a name “.

In the Tasmanian Legislative Council the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the bill could be dealt with before members realized its full implications was not agreed to. One member rose and said, “ This measure seems to me to be so far-reaching and the implications of it are so wide and deep that I think we should have more time to study it “. He moved that the debate be adjourned for a fortnight, and the motion was agreed to. At the end of the fortnight the Legislative Council threw the bill out. That action of the Legislative Council in Tasmania enhanced its prestige more than has any other action it has ever taken. On many occasions and in many places I have heard it said that that chamber saved this Commonwealth, and I verily believe it did.

After some time had elapsed, Dr. Evatt came to Tasmania and attempted to induce the members of the council - I was one of them at that time - to pass this measure; but strangely enough, just before he came over he had said - and this is recorded in “ Hansard “ - that legal advice in the possession of the Commonwealth Government indicated that the reference method for a limited period was of doubtful validity. He went on to refer to the terrible, peculiar and dangerous position in which Australia would be placed if the power were referred to the Commonwealth and afterwards the action were found to be invalid. When he came to the conference in Hobart in 1945 he was asked, “You have come here and urged the Legislative Council to pass this measure. Why did you make that statement in Canberra? “ He had no answer.

Reverting to what Senator McKenna said about this reference method, may I say that, personally, I have never been able to understand it.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is not our fault.

Senator LILLICO:

– It is not surprising. I have heard it said by some people that there are two methods of altering the Constitution; one is the reference method and the other is the referendum method. Although I have never been a legal man, there is one thing about which I am perfectly certain: The reference method was never intended by the founders of the Constitution to be used as a means of altering it. I have read1 the records of the conventions that led to the formulation of the Constitution, and that reference power centred in matters which might be in dispute between States. At that time there was tremendous controversy about the waters of the Murray and Darling Rivers. I understand from my reading of the records of the conventions that that power was placed in the Constitution so that if matters were in dispute and the States could not agree on, for instance, a fair apportionment of the waters of the Murray and its tributaries or any similar matter, they could be referred to the Commonwealth Parliament which would act as an arbitrator. Right at the end of the Constitution there is the chapter which says that the Constitution shall not be altered, except by referendum of the people. It was that provision of which Sir John Downer said, “This is to prevent an alteration of a constitution which concerns the people by any one other than the people “. They were the words he used when speaking on the insertion of that very section. So it seems to me to be vain to speak about altering the Constitution by the reference method.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Why did your government set up the Constitutional Review Committee? That is your government’s committee.

Senator LILLICO:

– I am speaking about the reference method and the Constitutional Review Committee, as far as I am aware, had nothing whatever to say about this method. All it envisages should be done is to follow up what Senator McKenna suggests and adopt the only democratic way. The various attempts that have been made by Labour to secure more power for this Parliament are certainly suspect. Not very long ago, on a telecast programme in Adelaide, Mr. Calwell said that he hoped to see sooner or later the imposition on Australia of a unitary form of government. He said that he would abolish the State Parliaments. Taking into consideration the fact that ;in the Labour Party’s platform is the aim of clothing the Commonwealth Parliament with unlimited power, one would naturally expect that persons who were pledged to support that platform would support anything that would help to bring it to fruition.

The new Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Whitlam, on a telecast p:ogramme in Brisbane, said amongst other things that a Labour Government would guide investment. He said that some people would be unkind enough to call that control, but it would not be control. I am not a commercial man but it has always seemed to me that investment will flow into those channels where the demand lies and where it is needed, and that any attempt unduly to control it and to try to cause it to flow into some channel wher e a bureaucrat at Canberra thinks it should flow will meet with disaster. Mr. Whitlam went on to say something which makes suspect the object of further aggregation of power. He said that a Labour Government would try to nationalize those industries that led to exploitation and those industries that we:e anti-social. In my time, I have heard Labour speakers describe the whole of our system as anti-social. I have heard people in every walk of life, even the humble potato growers, described as exploiters. So just how the Labour Party would adjudicate upon that matter and distinguish the exploiters from the exploited surpasses my comprehension. I suspect that if the Labour Party formed a government it would not exercise a beneficent influence upon the economy of this country or try to guide it beneficially. I think we would find that human nature would gain the upper hand and that Labour would try to use its power to implement its policies.

Let me come back for a moment to the powers legislation of 1944. I was keenly interested in the statements that were made then. Prominent public men in statements in the three Tasmanian newspapers castigated what they called the ten guilty men in the Legislative Council. I have the newspaper reports and they make interesting reading. They were full of the direst predictions about what would happen to this country. They said that there would be widespread unemployment and stagnation and that there could not be progress. In the light of what has happened since, they are amusing, because so far from those predictions coming to pass, this country has embarked upon one of the greatest eras of progress in its history.

Senator Hendrickson:

– In spite of this Government.

Senator LILLICO:

– I do not give this Government all credit for it, but I shudder when I think what would have happened if there had been in Canberra a government armed with all the powers that were sought, and pledged to a policy of nationalization. The suggestions for widening powers deal with an effect. They do not get down to the root cause of the trouble. There are too many people in this country who believe that we have climbed to the top of the hill, that we have done all we can do, that we have reached a satisfactory stage of development, that we have an adequate population, and that we should therefore sit down and take things easily. I believe that that attitude has given rise to inflation in this country. There are too many people, not only in trade unions but in all walks of life, who believe that the admirable philosophy is to get as much as you can, do as little as you can, take things as easily as you can, and let the country look after itself. I am not at all an admirer of communism; I think it is the greatest menace with which the world is faced to-day. Nevertheless, running through the speeches of nearly all Communist leaders is this theme: After we have worked, after we have progressed, after we have achieved, after we have increased our production, we shall have a standard of living as high as that of the Western countries. I really believe that until the majority of people in this country realize that real worth comes from work and production, the continuous adding to the wages bill will be merely adding figures to figures without obtaining any real value.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What kind of ointment do you use on the corns on your hands that come from the work that you do?

Senator LILLICO:

– I cleared more than 300 acres of heavily timbered land in Tasmania, and I would have been very sorry indeed to have had the honorable senator with me as a mate, because I think I would have had the heavier end of the stick most of the time.

We are confronted with a very difficult problem in relation to our exports. We must increase their volume, yet 80 per cent, of them come from primary industries. It has been said - rightly I think - that 80 per cent, of the value realized from exports is devoted to the purchase of plant and equipment for our secondary industries. So whichever way we go we are tied up as far as exports are concerned. It seems to me that we must depend almost entirely on the export of primary products. The National Bank of Australasia Limited sums up the position better than I can. In its monthly summary it states -

It would be unrealistic to expect primary industries to provide the major sh.,re of the additional £250 m. of exports which are estimated as necessary.

Something in excess of 1.1 million employees are engaged in manufacturing industries in Australia, representing about 38% of recorded employees, yet the products of secondary industries account for less than 15% of our export income. Indeed, if highly manufactured goods such as electrical equipment, machinery, motor vehicles, &c, are considered, the proportion would be only about 10.5%.

To some extent, the low proportion of manufactured exports in our total is accounted for by the high productivity of our primary industries which, with no more than 500,000 people engaged at the most, earn more than 80% of export income.

The bank states that in Great Britain the position is entirely the reverse - secondary industries in that country earn more than 80 per cent, of the export income.

In addition to needing to increase exports from secondary industries, I believe that we have been costed out of many markets. I do not begrudge workers their high standard of living and their good conditions of employment, but surely an essential corollary of full employment is that value should be given for the money received. I believe that the lack of good value for wages received is at the root of much of our trouble to-day.

In a leading article the Hobart “ Mercury “ stated -

The secretary of the Metal Trades Employers’ Association (Mr. R. G. Fry) pointed out that even the 40-hour week was a myth as far as employers are concerned, because in that industry the average man is working four hours overtime every week. Mr. Fry claimed, too, that fewer skilled workers are offering for migration each year and there is little hope of the labour shortage being overcome.

Against that background, talk of a 35-hour week is completely unrealistic. As the president of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce (Mr. J. C. Harris) has stated, it could result only in increased overtime or an immediate shortage of goods and services. More overtime would be an indirect way of raising wages, so pushing up costs and prices.

The income earned by people in Australia can only be gauged against the amount of goods that we export. When costs rise exports must be curtailed. As the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has stated, we must export or reach a state of stagnation. Increasing wages and the imposition of protective tariffs mean that the cost structure is being built up in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for primary producers to export. Australians must adopt a new philosophy towards work. They must realize that when they do their best they are not just doing something for the boss but are doing something for the economy of Australia. I know that the Australian worker has been educated to think that if he works hard he will only improve the lot of the boss, but this is not so. If he does not change his attitude towards work, the progress that has been maintained in this country over the past ten or twelve years cannot continue because the cost structure will mount to such an extent that, instead of our exports increasing and helping to pay for the importation of materials and plant necessary for our secondary industries, we will reach a state of complete stagnation. Increasing wages without increasing production will lead only to an increase in costs and stagnation.

As to the Budget, I look askance somewhat at the idea of financing capital works from revenue. I know that there are exigencies in the position that confronts the Commonwealth that must be met. In the hands of a ruthless government the principle that capital works should be financed from revenue could grow and ultimately lead to outright confiscation of the taypayers’ earnings. It is essential that the Government should receive full value for the money that it spends in this way.

I wish to refer to a project which, while it is under the jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Labour Government, is financed to a considerable extent from funds provided by the Commonwealth. Some matters in relation to this project in my opinion cry aloud for redress. I have referred to them on other occasions. I hope that the value received from the expenditure of this money is not typical of the value that the Commonwealth receives for the money that it expends. I refer to the Montagu Swamp scheme, where, according to my information 48 or 49 farms have been established. The average size of the farms was 110 acres. The cost - finality has not yet been reached on this matter - has been just over £2,000,000. This area was covered with a scrub. Most of it was what you would call scrub about as thick as a whip handle. A portion of it was covered with larger trees, most of which were about 1 ft. through. I asked a man, not once but twice, in order to make certain of his answer, what he would have done with it. He was a man on whose word one could depend. He said, “ I would have scrubbed it with a slash hook”. I said, “ At what price? “ He said, “ I would have done it for £10 an acre “. I was so impressed by what the man had said that I went back to him some time afterwards and asked him, “ Are you sure you would do that job for £10 an acre?” He said, “ Yes. I have done many jobs cheaper than that.”

Senator O’Byrne:

– He would do an acre in four days to get the basic wage?

Senator LILLICO:

– I verily believe that this man would do it. But even if that price were doubled, or trebled, it would still be cheap by comparison. Although the money has been expended and any pressure brought to bear upon the Tasmanian Government would be as futile as shutting the stable door after the horse had gone, nevertheless I believe that it should be made impossible for the man responsible for that job on Montagu Swamp ever to have anything again to do with the expenditure of public money. The deplorable part about it is that no one seems to care. This subject has been brought up in the Tasmanian Parliament many times, but no action has been taken in regard to it. The cost of doing that job in order to settle 48 or 49 soldiers on the land at Montagu Swamp is a crying scandal.

Senator Aylett:

– The Legislative Council of Tasmania approved it.

Senator LILLICO:

– The Legislative Council of Tasmania had nothing whatever to do with the administration of that scheme. However, I think that I have said enough about the matter.

Little has been said during this debate about foreign affairs. While communism has been described as a bogy, I feel that one of the most important things concerning the civilized world to-day is the threat of communism. I know that this subject has been .referred to so often by so many people that it has become unpopular to mention it. Some people are inclined to say: “ You are riding a hobby horse. There is nothing in it. It is only a bogy.” Let me say this: Within the past 40 years, 1,000,000,000 people, or thereabouts, have come under one of the worst tyrannies that have ever been inflicted upon mankind. Since the war ended in 1945, 100.000.000 more people, by methods of infiltration, subversion and other activities, have come under the menace of this horrible thing.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Were any of the countries involved under the control of Labour governments?

Senator LILLICO:

– I do not see what that has to do in respect of any particular country that came under the threat of communism. What I want to point out is that any action that is taken by the Soviet countries in relation to foreign affairs has only one end in view; that is, to further the advance of world communism. No one who has even a moderate knowledge of the situation that exists in the world! to-day will deny that the downright hypocrisy of these people leaps to the eye - the very acme of hypocrisy. It has been admitted that there are from 12,00,000 to 13,000,000 people in the slave camps in Russia. The highest estimate I have heard was 30,000,000. They are sent to inhospitable parts of the Soviet Union where people will not willingly go to work or to live, and the great majority of them are kept there to work until they die. Yet at the same time, Communists, over the radio, through their agents in various parts of the world, including Australia, call upon the workers of the world to rise and strike off their chains. Could you get anything more sardonically hypocritical? One of the worst features about the whole thing is that, while we cannot do very much about the international position, we can do something regarding that element in this country, but the very great indifference of the Australian people to this subject is appalling. Their attitude was summed up very well in an article that I read a few days ago, in these words -

Australians have lived in freedom so long they no longer think about it. Russians, never having had it long enough to make its acquaintance, do not understand it. Australians can no more grasp Soviet State serfdom than the Russians can comprehend democratic individuality.

That is what I believe to be one of the great causes of the cleavage between East and West. I am not one of these people who believe that you cannot kill an idea. I am not one of these people who believe that while communism is out in the open you can see it and do something to counter act it. I believe that Communists should be placed in the same category as other people who break the law. They should be placed in the same category as a murderer, because they would murder our society; there is no doubt about that. I say that the Commonwealth Government should have at communism with every weapon in its possession. A few days ago, Mr. G. G. Leach, the chairman of the Tasmanian Timber Association, referred to the seamen’s hold-up. I take it that the seamen’s union is Communist-controlled; the Communists have made it their business to get hold of the key unions of this country, so far as is possible. Mr. Leach said that unless something is done about the seamen’s hold-up, affecting as it does the freighting of timber from Tasmania to the mainland, the Tasmanian timber industry will face disaster because mainland buyers will, if possible, get their timber from overseas. It seems to me to be unthinkable that these people should be able to hold this country to ransom, and I repeat, it is an appalling thing that the people of Australia, or the majority of them, are completely indifferent to this state of affairs. I believe that we should do our part in Australia by striking at the fifth column that is undoubtedly in our midst.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

Senator Lillico seems to have only one cure for the economic ills of Australia, and that is more work. He does not seem to connect with that, a policy of less pay, which is the policy advocated by the Government that he supports. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said recently in a telecast that it could be assumed that the Government would intervene in the next basic wage hearing, lt has already intervened in one hearing. As I have said, Senator Lillico wants more work to be done and the Treasurer wants lower wages to be paid. It seems that only one section of the community has to pay the price for the stability of the Australian economy.

Senator Lillico also said that we must export more. I agree with him. He said also that 80 per cent, of our export income goes to purchase capital equipment, lt would have been interesting had he told us the proportion of our export income that goes to pay the interest on our overseas debt - money which is completely lost to us. The records show that in the past 50 years something like £,1,500,000,000 has gone to pay interest on overseas debts. That is money for which we have received nothing.

This Budget has been referred to as a Budget to halt inflation. There are certain provisions in it that will take money from the community. 1 refer to the withdrawal of the 5 per cent, reduction in income tax that was made last year and to the 6d. in the £1 increase in company taxation. I ask the Treasurer whether he intends to try to solve the inflationary problem by taking money out of the public’s hands and at the same time allowing the public to go to finance companies and get accommodation for any quantity of money at exorbitant interest rates. It is useless to try to restrict the amount of money in the hands of the public by taxation while that avenue of obtaining money is available.

I want to reply briefly to some remarks that were made in this chamber some time ago by Senators Anderson and Kendall. When I was talking about inflation, they could not understand why, in 1950, two judges of the then Arbitration Court were able to arrive at a compromise decision to increase the basic wage by £1 when the Chief Judge was not in favour of any increase at all. It will perhaps interest them if they look at volume 68 of the Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, page 628, and see that the Chief Judge’s only reason for not agreeing to an increase in the basic wage was that the court had no power to control prices. I do not suggest that prices control is the complete answer to inflation, but it certainly can have an effect.

The inflationary spiral began when the Commonwealth was denied the power to control prices on 29th May, 1948. lt has b”een said that the inflationary spiral commenced while the Chifley Government was in power, and there is no question that it did. The National Security Regulations had been declared invalid, so the Chifley Government went to the people and asked for power to control prices, but the people denied it that power, under the urging of the Liberal Party, which spent something like £2,000,000 in its campaign. Although prices started to rise and the infla tionary spiral commenced during the regime of the Chifley Government, that was a direct result of the action of the parties that are in office to-day. They must accept responsibility for the whole of the inflation that has gone on throughout Australia in the post-war years. 1 want now to deal with a few things that affect the people whom I represent. I shall not say very much about the Budget itself now, because I do not want to repeat myself when the Estimates come before this chamber. Recently I toured the north-west of Western Australia to see what problems the people in that area had in which this Government might be able to assist them. One of the biggest problems in the Wyndham area to-day is the lack of banking facilities. Wyndham is a developing town which is almost cut off from the rest of Australia. The north-west road that runs from Perth to Darwin does not go anywhere near it. The road passes about 250 miles to the east. In addition, the town is not connected to any outside place by telephone. You can get messages through by telegram, or over the flying doctor radio network, but the town is almost completely isolated.

A large quantity of money circulates in the area, but money has to be brought in each pay-day. lt does not go back into a bank to be re-circulated on the next pay-day. The whole of the money must be brought into the town each fortnight. In an endeavour to assist the residents of this area I approached the Western Australian State manager of the Commonwealth Bank to find out whether the bank had made a survey of the position and whether it would be in a position to open a branch of the bank at Wyndham. The manager admitted that no survey had been undertaken but said that, as a result of my representations, he would see what could be done.

I knew that the Australia and New Zealand Bank had made a survey, so I approached the manager of that bank to see what conclusions had been arrived at. I was told that the bank was very favorably impressed with the prospects for a branch at Wyndham but that there were other places in Australia - in Victoria and Queensland - which were better propositions. I then approached the Rural and Industries Bank, which is a State bank, and was advised by

One- of the directors that it was beyond the Capacity of the bank to establish a branch there. The banking facilities- available in Wyndham at the present time consist of an agency of the Commonwealth Bank at the meatworks. However, it does not pay out money but only receives deposits. The meatworkers who bank with the agency are unable to draw money out. There is a branch of the Commonwealth Savings Bank at the post office, withdrawals from which are limited to £10 at a time. lt is true that the postmaster has a Commonwealth Bank cheque book and is able, after permission has been obtained from the head office in Perth, to write cheques for larger sums than that, but unless the cheques can be cashed in the area it is of very little use to obtain them from the postmaster. A branch of the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank is conducted at the small store of D. and A. Vagg. I understand from discussions with Mr. Vagg that there is no limit to the amount that may be withdrawn from accounts with that bank, but honorable senators will appreciate that a small store in a town like Wyndham would not carry a great deal of money. Therefore, the amounts that clients may withdraw from that bank are limited by the amount of money available there.

In addition to the disabilities I have mentioned, I point out that employees of the Main Roads Department and other government instrumentalities in the area are paid by government cheque. Many of them are able to come to town only at week-ends or at night time, when even the poor banking facilities I have described are not available to them. The result is that the local publican becomes the banker for the town. He is put to considerable inconvenience because there is nowhere for him to deposit his money. The branch of the Commonwealth Bank at the meatworks will not take it. He has to forward it to Perth and pay registration and transfer fees on it. If it is within the power of the Commonwealth Government to assist the people in the area, I urge it to do so and at least to instruct the Commonwealth Bank to investigate the conditions there with a view to ascertaining whether it would be an economic proposition, having regard to the development that is occurring, to establish a branch of the bank there. I refer to the annual report of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, on the first page of which is the following statement: -

It shall be the duty of the Commonwealth Bank, within the limits of its powers, to pursue a monetary and banking policy directed to the greatest advantage of the Australian people.

That statement is also to be found in the Commonwealth Bank Act. I urge the Government to do something along the lines I have indicated, if that is possible.

Earlier to-day there was discussion in the Senate of the delay in the installation of telephones. There is not a continuous telephone service in Wyndham because there are not sufficient subscribers connected to the exchange to meet the requirements of the regulations regarding the provision of a continuous service, but I suggest that the number of outstanding applications, if satisfied, would so increase the number of subscribers that a continuous service would toe justified. I do not want to be unkind, but it seems to me that applications are being delayed for the reason that if all applications for telephone services were met the Postal Department would be obliged to provide a continuous service.

Because of the development of the area, I believe that the Postal Department should consider connecting Wyndham to the radio telephone service. That would mean, first, the installation of a power plant. It would not be outside the province of this Government to install such a plant for the use of the post office, because even if a plant were installed in the town it would be necessary to have an auxiliary plant at the post office, as at present. At the moment, there are five generating plants at the post office, operated by the postal workers and serviced by employees of the Department of Civil Aviation. If it is necessary to have five different generating plants at the post office to provide the postal facilities at present available, surely the Government could install a small plant and connect the area to the outside world.

The post office at Wyndham is a very old and dilapidated building. It is overcrowded owing to “the activities that are proceeding in the area. I assure honorable senators that those activities will increase in intensity. I think it is time that either the

Commonwealth Government or the Postal Department had a look at Wyndham post office and decided either to extend it in order to give the postal workers sufficient room in which to perform their duties, or to build a new post office. The department is at present spending approximately £3,000 on renovating the postmaster’s residence. If it were acting economically, it would be pulling down the residence and building a new one, because the present building has been there for so many years that I imagine only the renovations will keep it standing.

The Postal Department seems to be in difficulties in the whole of the north-west area. I have been informed that it is the intention of the Government to build a new post office at Derby. The present post office, though very much overcrowded, is in an ideal position, in the centre of the commercial area of the town. The Government proposes to build a new post office about a third of a mile away from the commercial area, in an area where expansion will never be possible ‘because the block of land that has been selected is locked in on two sides by buildings. It backs on to a marsh, while the hospital is in front of it. There can never be any development around the proposed site of the new post office. All the housing development is taking place a mile or a mile and a half away from the proposed site. The business people whose premises surround the present post office are in convenient proximity to it, but if the post office is constructed on the proposed site they will have quite a journey to make in order to get to it.

I understand, Sir, that it is not intended to install an air-conditioning plant in the post office at Derby. As you know, the climate there is tropical and very humid. Derby is situated on a spit of land between two marshes. It is in a cyclonic, heavy rainfall belt. In the summer time, the average temperature is 80 degrees. Despite this, no provision has been made for air conditioning either in the post office, to assist the workers, or in the home that will be built for the postmaster.

Derby has recently been connected to the outside world by radio telephone, and this facility is quite a boon to the residents of that area. But the recent amendment to the postal regulations, under which zones were created, bears harshly upon these outback areas. Derby is some 1,500 miles from Perth by air, and every time one makes a telephone call out of Derby one is charged the maximum trunk line rate. If a person requires supplies of any sort,, such as machinery parts, about the only place where he can be sure of getting them, is Perth. The only other place where supplies may be obtained is Geraldton, which is 1,200 miles from Derby. The maximum trunk line fee operates when the distance is more than 400 miles. So every time the residents of Derby use the radio telephone, they have to pay the maximum rates chargeable under the regulations.

This service is required not only for commercial purposes. In these areas people who can afford to do so - and many who really cannot afford it - are placed in the position of having to send their children away for further education. On occasions these people like to get in touch with their children, but they are obliged to pay the maximum trunk line rates. In Victoria and Tasmania, and even in Queensland with its larger towns along the coast, many people would be able to telephone for supplies without having to pay the maximum rates. I submit to the Government and to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) that the charging of maximum rates is an imposition on people in the outback areas and that something should be done to alleviate the position.

I inspected a new post office building at Broome, which also is in a tropical area. It is a very nice building, but it is not as comfortable to work in as was the old building. The old building was up on piles; the air circulated around it, and it was reasonably cool. But the new building is on a stone foundation on the ground and no provision has been made for air conditioning. During the last summer it was almost impossible for the employees to work in the building. The Postal Department has now decided to install ceiling fans, but ceiling fans in that hot. still, humid climate will do nothing but stir up the air. It seems that the plans and specifications, for these buildings are drawn in Canberra, Melbourne or elsewhere in the south by someone who has never been in the area and who has no conception of what is required for the comfort of the workers.

It is proposed to build a new residence for the postmaster in the very near future, but again there is no provision in the specification for air conditioning. It is suggested that a fan be installed in every room, but to my mind that is not satisfactory, particularly when we know that these buildings, with continuous renovation, will have to serve for some 40 or 50 years.

The post office at Port Hedland is only being held up by the white ants holding hands, lt is a very old building and is due for renovation. It is much too small for the volume of work that is handled. Port Hedland is in a developing area. I know that quite recently the department has erected a new exchange which will relieve the position somewhat, but that is not sufficient to allow the workers to perform their duties in reasonable comfort. If a new building is not erected at Port Hedland soon, the present one simply will fall down. The Postmaster-General should examine the situation because, as I said earlier, Port Hedland is in a developing area. If a licence is granted for the export of iron ore from Mount Goldsworthy, Port Hedland will become a much busier centre.

An anomaly exists in relation to the employment of staff in this centre. As we all know, these employees are bound to accept transfers to distant areas. When they join the service they are told that they may be transferred to distant parts. When I was at Port Hedland I found that there were seven single men who had been transferred there. They had no option other than to leave the service. But no accommodation was provided for them. The only accommodation that was available was at the hotel. So we have a situation in which boys of seventeen and eighteen years of age are required to live in a hotel and, during the day time, to accept responsibility for handling public mail and public funds. In any case, the hotel tariffs are too high. Young people of that age cannot afford to live in hotels. Consequently, they are continually short of money and the handling of funds is a great temptation to them. It is quite remarkable that something has not happened for which a boy would be blamed but for which the administration really would be responsible.

The Postal Department has three blocks of land in this area. For some years plans have been in existence for a dormitory to accommodate single people in the area, but to date nothing has been done. I suggest that the Postmaster-General should take urgent steps to see that some form of accommodation is provided in the area, particularly in view of the fact that State departments and business people have provided accommodation for single persons. It is true of course, that under the regulations postal workers in this area receive an increased allowance. A boy under the age of eighteen years receives £60 a year, and a boy over eighteen years of age gets £120 a year. But that is not sufficient to pay for the extra expense of living at an hotel. Sixty pounds a year to a boy under the age of eighteen years does not mean a thing. That sum would be eaten up in the purchase of the extra clothes that are needed in the area. Of the seven single people who were at Port Hedland when I visited the area, two were under the age of sixteen years.

Senator Lillico said that 80 per cent, of Australia’s exports consisted of primary products, of which wool accounted for approximately 50 per cent. The pastoral industry in the area around Carnarvon is very valuable to Australia, because it produces quite a quantity of wool. But there is something in the area which causes sterility in sheep. After sheep have been in the area for a couple of years the lambing results fall from about 80 per cent, to about 20 per cent. This is quite worrying to the pastoralists in the area because it means that they cannot replenish their flocks. They cannot breed on the stations and every time they want to bring young stock on to their stations it has to be brought from somewhere in the south. In view of the importance of the pastoral industry to Australia, I suggest to the Government that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization be asked to make available a scientist to inquire into the reason for these sheep becoming sterile after a couple of years in the area. There is an agricultural research station at Carnarvon and only a small laboratory would be required in the area to enable the scientist to conduct his experiments. Suitable working arrangements could be made with the pastoralists in the area. I strongly urge the Government to take that action in view of the value of the wool industry to Australia.

Now, Sir, I come to the Budget. The theme running through it is the slackening of development in an attempt to control the inflationary spiral. It is not so many months since the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced a five-point plan to control inflation, lt is true that the present Budget is part of the plan because one of the points was the abandonment of deficit financing at least for this year, and that is what the Budget proposes. In the fivepoint plan, the first point was action to prevent any increase in the liquidity of the banking system, lt is true that the Government has taken some action in respect of that matter, but very little. The second point was the discontinuance of deficit financing in the 1960-61 Budget, which we have before us.

The third point was the removal of practically all import restrictions. When the Government proposed to remove import restrictions, we on this side of the Senate warned the Government of the effect such removal could have on industry and employment in industry. Now the Government is faced with the difficulty that we predicted would result from such a policy. The lifting of import controls is allowing a flood of goods into Australia, which is affecting employment in industry. Only a few days ago legislation was introduced into this chamber, and passed by it, to allow the Government to have quick access to the Tariff Board in order to cover up the mistake the Government made last February when it lifted import licensing holus bolus. In fact, what has happened is that tariff control has been substituted for import licensing. That might be very handy for the Treasurer because now more money will be received from tariffs. Even if we agree that the lifting of import licensing was an action to control prices by creating greater competition, that is not to be done now. That is one of the points of the five-point plan which has been abandoned because the Government, on the application of an industry, will set up a tariff inquiry to consider the imposition of a tariff on the importation of certain goods. The end result will be that goods will be imported into this country at a tariff that makes them equal in price to Australian goods, or not cheap enough to destroy Australian industries, so the effect will not be to create cheaper goods by competition.

I want it to be clearly understood that I, as a member of the Labour Party, am not opposed to tariffs. I believe that Australian industries should be protected by tariffs. However, I do direct attention to the haphazard economic policy of the Government. I believe the Government has been correctly described as an onagainoffagain government. That description is applicable to import licensing and the shortlived 5 per cent, reduction in income tax. The Government presents budgets that are supposed to cure inflation, but they do not do it. So the next budget sets out to cure what the previous budget did not cure.

The abandonment of import licensing had serious effects on the economic position of Australia. If that situation continues, and if tariff controls are not sufficient to remedy the position, our overseas balances will be destroyed. I believe that the Government is prepared for quite a reduction in them, but I am not too sure that it has properly assessed the position. I hope it has, because if Australia’s overseas balances start to decrease at an alarming rate, only two solutions of the problem can be found. One is to mortgage Australia. Greater amounts of money will have to be borrowed from overseas to take up the slack in the overseas balances, to create credits for Australia. On all of those loans that we raise overseas we will have to pay interest. So, we will have to export more goods to pay the interest, and we will get nothing for those goods. They will just go out of the country without creating credit. The second way in which the problem can be solved is by encouraging people to invest more money in Australia. We will have to speed up the economic colonization of this country. Those are the only ways in which we will be able to counteract the large drain on overseas balances which is foreseen.

Once the overseas investors see that we must have overseas money invested in this country, they will start to demand concessions for the investment of their money in Australia and we will then have to pay a very high price for that investment. I urge the Government to be very careful to sec that it does not sell this country to overseas investors.

The fourth action of the Government was its intervention in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s hearing of the basic wage case. The Government opposed the application. This was the Government’s first and quickest action. It was not surprising, of course, in view of the fact that the Government consists of members of the Literal Party and Country Party, who have no sympathy with the working class and who believe, as Senator Lillico has said, that the answer to the problem is more work and less pay. In any case, whether or not the Government believes that to be the correct answer, that is its policy. The Government will take action against working classes to see that they do not get a fair go. It advised the commission that the economy of the country could not stand a further increase in wages until the two previous increases had been digested. That was despite the justice of the claim made and despite the ability of industry to pay, which has been the basis of basic wage claims since 1934. The Government said to the commission, in effect: “ The economy cannot digest a further increase. It does not matter what you find. You are not an impartial court. You must take notice of what we say. It does not matter what evidence is put before you.” In order to arrest inflation, the Government has adopted the policy of attacking those sections who are least able to bear the attack. The ‘Government has done so both in regard to the basic wage and in regard to the re-imposition of the 5 per cent, reduction in income tax that was made last “year. It may be that the 5 per cent, reduction in tax meant only an all-day sucker a week to the working-class man, but at least it was something. That has been taken away from him now, and he is not allowed to have an increase in wages.

The fifth action mentioned by the Prime Minister in his message to the nation was legislation to control monopolies and restrictive trade practices. This action has not been taken and I noticed in the press recently a report that it was not contemplated that such action would be taken this year. If the Government is able to arrest inflation by the use of tariffs and by opposition to wage increases, then without a doubt this fifth point of the plan will never be implemented.

Nothing is being done in respect to collusive tendering, which we know is rife in the community. Every financial review that one reads directs attention to it, but does the Government intend to do anything about it? Of course, it does not! Nothing has been .done to restrict the activity of price rings, which we know are operating right throughout the country. Government supporters oppose prices control. They spent millions of pounds to prevent the Commonwealth from obtaining power to control prices on an equitable basis for the whole community, but the Government does nothing to prevent combines from fixing prices. It does nothing to prevent manufacturers from withholding goods unless they are sold at a previously agreed price. Those manufacturers run retailers out of business and deny them the right to trade. A small businessman is denied the right to trade unless he sells at prices fixed by the manufacturing combines. Is there any attempt to control action of this kind? I suggest that there is not and that there never will be. The Government has completely forgotten the Speech delivered by the Governor-General in this chamber last March, when the people were told that action would be taken ‘to control monopolies and restrictive trade practices. The Government runs away from these things.

What action has the Government taken to control the boom in real estate prices? People buy land at £10 an acre, hold it for a few years, and sell it for £2,000 or £3,000 a quarter-acre, without having done a single thing to the land. They exploit persons who need to live close to the cities because under this Government’s wage policy they are unable to pay high transport costs. Land and estate sharks, as I call them, are allowed to exploit people without contributing anything to the increased value of land. We live in a world of supply and demand. The Government complains about demand inflation, but does nothing to prevent demand inflation of this kind.

The Budget will do nothing to restrain inflation. It is of no use to take money out of the hands of people while allowing them to get credit from hire-purchase and finance companies. The Government has been the architect of inflation right from its inception. It should honour its 1949 policy and get down to the real problem of putting value back into the £1. I do not accept Senator Lillico’s contention that this is a matter for a community effort, because Mr.

Menzies said in’ 1949, “ We will put value back into the- £1 “. He was not talking about the whole community. He was talking about what the Liberal Party and Country Party would do if they held the reins of government. We were told about the Chifley “ quids “. Let honorable senators have a look, at the Menzies “ flimsies “ and see what they are worth to-day. A Menzies “ flimsy “ is worth 3s. 6d. to-day. I condemn the Budget. I shall speak later on other aspects of it, when the Appropriation Bill and the Social Services Bill are before the chamber.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– 1 support the motion for the printing of the Budget Papers. 1 support it because the Budget makes sense to me and to the people of Australia, as it did, I think, to most of the newspapers of this country, if one may judge their attitude from what was written. As a result of my own contacts, I feel that this is how the Budget has been received by the Australian people. It makes sense to them.

Receipts for the coming financial year are estimated to be £1,812,000,000, and expenditure is estimated to be £1,796,500,000. These are colossal figures in any language. lt is conceivable that in a few years the Australian Budget will contain estimates of receipts and expenditure both of which are in excess of £2,000,000,000, whereas it is not long since we saw the introduction of the first Budget totalling £1 ,000,000,000.. I think it was about 1951 or 1952.

These figures indicate that the Government expects a surplus of £15,500,000, which shows that the Government was in earnest when it foreshadowed a balanced Budget. The remarkable thing is that it has been achieved with so little pain to the taxpayer. It shows an improvement in the Budget position compared with twelve months ago of £76,000,000, and an improvement of some £46,000,000 in the revealed actual Budget figures over last year. This has been achieved by withdrawing the 5 per cent, rebate of income tax, which was introduced last year, and by increasing the rate of company tax by 6d. in the £1. In addition, fees paid by airline companies towards the cost of maintaining and operating airport and airways facilities have been increased. The objective of the Budget, as has been pointed out by almost every speaker this evening, has been to steady down the rate of spending which was maintained during the past twelve months and to give the economy time to digest the inflationary fillips that were given to it in the last twelve months.

In his Budget speech the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said -

Clearly, a strong upthrust. of activity is still very much under way. Much of this activity - probably most of it - is desirable in every sense of the word. In point of employment, output and growth of capacity for production, 1959-60 was, withoUt doubt, a notable year. Employment rose by more than 90,000 and unemployment fell to low figures. There was no difficulty at any stage in absorbing the new labour, migrant or locally born, which came forward. Output- increased in almost every manufacturing industry, quite remarkably in some, and it was a good all-round year for rural production. The building industry achieved records, both in the construction of houses and flats and in other forms of building. It was, in a word., a year of fine achievement, one in which all sections of the community strove hard and well and effectively.

That is the favorable side of the picture. It shows the economy driving ahead, full of enterprise, eager to accomplish real things and big things.

During the year, however, some serious trends developed which, if unchecked, could be a real danger. These trends are seen in shortages of key materials in some cases while shortages of some classes of labour have again appeared. This situation has arisen despite an increase in the work force of more than 90,000, including the absorption of a large migrant intake and of our own young people leaving school.

The Government has decided that the prevention of the greater development of these shortages lies in an increase of the supply not of money but of goods which will meet the demands of the public for such goods; in a relaxation of import controls and restrictions; in a steadying down of credits by way of bank credits; in a curtailment of spending by government institutions and departments; and, if possible, in a curtailment of increases in wages following awards of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission before the effects of such increases made during the last twelve months have been absorbed by the economy generally. All this is being achieved and. in addition, the Government is budgeting for a surplus. This is being done painlessly and without inflicting hardship upon any one. It is small wonder that the press of this country has found so little to criticize in the Budget. The Budget was accepted : s being sensible, realistic and inevitable, which is a tribute to the good common sense of the Australian people.

The Government has avoided the pitfalls of increased1 indirect taxation, which was forecast in some quarters. There has been no increase in excise duties on liquor, cigarettes and other consumer goods. Here I give credit to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) for having resisted pressure to increase excise duties on certain goods. An increase in revenue from the excise on brandy would have caused considerable hardship to growers along the river Murray in South Australia. I express the gratitude of those people to the Government for having taken a practical view of this matter. Figures have shown that the law of diminishing returns quickly operates when excise duties are tampered with, and the growers along the river Murray are thankful that this impost has been left well alone.

A rise is inevitably shown in expenditure on social services. The charge on the National Welfare Fund for 1960-61 stands at £330,698,000. That section of the community which has claims on our national prosperity must be kept in mind and therefore increases in age, invalid and widows’ pensions, although not as great as some of us might wish them to be, are in keeping with the spirit of the Budget at this time. One very pleasing feature of the Budget is the relaxation of means test. The new “ means as assessed “ procedure will result in a pensioner being able to save something for himself or herself instead of having to dispose of his or her savings in order to qualify for a pension. This is a real victory for the Government members’ social services committee, the chairman of which is my colleague, Mr. K. C. Wilson, the honorable member for Sturt. For many years he has been the champion in this Parliament of the less privileged in our midst. For a long time he has maintained that savings should be encouraged, not only for the benefit of the individual but also for the good of the nation. I feel sure that the Department of Social Services and the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) will be applauded by thinking people in the community for having achieved this major break-through.

I also congratulate the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Sir Walter Cooper) for having seen fit to extend free hospitalization of the old diggers of World War I and the Boer War veterans, who may not be able to prove that their disabilities were war caused. This will be a real boon to the old diggers and will be appreciated by them, their relatives and their friends. It is a concession that I am sure the public at large will applaud. It is the result of the efforts of a man who, an old1 soldier himself, has the welfare of the returned soldiers at heart. I am sure that all of us give him credit for it.

This being an occasion when general debate is allowed on the first item of the Estimates, 1 desire to offer a few comments on matters that are perhaps outside the Budget itself but, by reason of their character, are in fact closely related to it. First, I pay tribute to the Minister for Trade, Mr. McEwen. During the period that he has been Minister for Trade he has shown himself to be a very able man. He has worked tirelessly and earnestly in the interests of primary producers in particular, and that section of the community should be everlastingly grateful to him. He has negotiated trade agreements with numerous countries, all of them of great benefit to Australia. He is continually on the watch for opportunities to expand or promote Australian trade of all kinds and thus build up Australia’s balance of payments. This applies particularly to our primary products. Markets for these are becoming increasingly difficult to hold, let alone expand, because of the inflationary trend in this country, which has now reached such proportions that our internal costs are becoming so high as to render the sale of these commodities increasingly difficult. In addition, the unfair trading practices of some countries which have price-support programmes, give-away programmes - which tend to ignore our traditional markets - and, in some countries, low wages and living standards, all add to our difficulties in making sales. Added to these things, the new policies of the two vital blocs of European countries which, I believe, are rapidly drawing closer together for their own protection, may result in making the sale of our products increasingly difficult. I refer to those countries comprising the European economic bloc and those that comprise “The seven”.

The overall picture is depressing indeed, with prices still falling. I fear that the days of high prices are gone, perhaps never to return. Particularly is this true of wool, which last week continued to decline, and of wheat, barley, dried fruits, canned fruits and dairy products. People engaged in these industries are fighting for their lives with their backs against the inflationary wall. They are being forced to sell the greater portion of their products on the world’s markets and they must meet fierce and sometimes unfair competition while at the same time having little control over their internal costs of production. Therefore, they are in a cleft stick. The Minister for Trade should be absolved from blame in respect of these matters. He has pressed on relentlessly with his task, which is to find and expand markets. He has established and expanded trade commissioner services numbering, I think, 31, which stand us in good stead, and he has negotiated trade agreements that are too numerous to mention. Instances that come to mind are the agreements with Ceylon and Malaya, which have benefited wheat and flour particularly. The trade agreement with Japan has turned out better than we thought and has proved an untold benefit.

The latest trade agreement is the one between Australia and Canada, which has just come into force. This agreement, while retaining all of the concessions under the 1931 agreement, greatly favours the lamb and mutton industries, through the medium of lower duties. The agreement also favours our canned beef and canned fruits industries, and Australian brandy and wine, and includes a greater Canadian preference than Canada was obliged to maintain under the 1931 agreement for our canned corn beef. Concessions are also secured for wool, sausage skins, sheep skins and various minor items. It is, I imagine, the result of much hard bargaining, which only goes to prove what an able negotiator Mr. McEwen is. I repeat, every primary producer in Australia, in the diffi cult era through which we are passing, should be everlastingly grateful that we have such an able and conscientious Minister at the head of this vital department, the Department of Trade. Mr. McEwen returned recently to Australia from New Zealand, where he concluded arrangements for the establishment of a permanent committee to examine ways by which reciprocal trade between the two countries may be expanded.

I, personally, welcome the Government’s proposal to send a trade ship to South-East Asia early next year. I referred to this possibility in a question I asked in the Senate on 31st May last. This floating shop will carry a wide range of Australian manufactures and primary produce, as well as a trade mission of, I think, 38 people. The ship will call at Singapore, Penang, Bombay, Colombo and Cochin ports.

The visit will be sponsored by the Australian Chambers of Commerce Export Council, and the council’s president, Mr. A. P. Whitington, of Adelaide, has said that export promotion in this ship will be national in character. Display space will be allotted on a State basis, and the venture will be financed by the sale of display space and berths. This is the very thing I had in mind when I asked my question in this chamber and, therefore, I am pleased that the Minister has taken up the matter so promptly. This trade ship will evidently be self-supporting from the beginning, ft will do much, in a practical way, to further Australian trade by advertising the goods we have for sale in areas of great population where we at present do comparatively little trading. It may well be the answer to a Japanese move in a similar direction; I understand that a Japanese ship will be sent to Australia later this year. It is my earnest hope that the trade ship which we are to send to South-East Asia next year will he followed by many more such floating shops from Australia. A visit is to be made by a trade delegation to South America next month, and it may be possible to plan a similar mission to that continent next year.

There is another matter to which I have given some thought of late and which I now propose to place before the Senate. Tt. too, affects primary producers, and relates to the difficulties that they are experiencing at this time. As we all know, Sir, primary producers carry the cumulative effect of all costs, simply because they cannot pass on the burden to anyone else. Honorable senators will realize, I believe, that this is true. Primary producers are, in this respect, well-nigh unique in the Australian scheme of things. My friends from the Australian Country Party will immediately agree, I am sure, with this contention, and doubtless many Liberal Party senators share my view.

We were told quite recently by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) that primary production was responsible for 80 per cent, of the total value of our exports during the financial year ended 30th June last. The total value of these exports in 1959-60 was £740,000,000. Australia must be vitally concerned with anything that constitutes a threat to its well being. The tariff policy of Australia, as was mentioned in the Senate some time ago by my colleague, Senator Lillico - he referred to it again during his speech this evening - places a burden on primary producers, as a group, perhaps greater than they realize when they are casting about for ways and means of lowering their costs of production, as they are continually being urged to do. Senator Lillico, in his most excellent speech this evening, explained these matters much more forcefully than I could ever hope to do. So far as I know, the extent of this burden has never been assessed. Certainly, it has not been assessed since I have been a member of this chamber, or since 1931.

I suggest to the Government that a thoroughly competent and complete investigation should be made into this matter at the earliest possible date in order to reveal whether my contention that the tariff places a burden on our primary producers is correct, and, if it is, the extent of the burden and the best method of offsetting it. I want to say, Mr. Deputy President, that this suggestion is in no way intended as criticism of the Tariff Board as such. I believe that the board is an efficient and thorough body. This Government accepts readily - quite rightly - the vast majority of reports that the board furnishes, almost without question. But the Tariff Board inquires only into such matters as are referred to it by the Government. It is the accepted policy of all parties in this

Parliament to extend protection to industries which can make out a case to the satisfaction of the board that they deserve protection. But primary producers, except in rare cases, are not in a position to make out a case for protection. Hence it follows that they are forced to carry the whole burden of the protection which the rest of the community enjoys and, I repeat, they are in no way able to pass it on. In short, primary production, which receives very little protection, provides the bulk of our exports and, at the same time, pays directly for most of the protection accorded to secondary industry, which is responsible for only a minor share of our exports.

The same thing may be said of the effects of awards of arbitration tribunals. The primary producer has to work under awards, but he cannot pass on the cost of them to any one else. As a result, he finds that his costs of producing primary commodities for export are rising to heights which are beyond the prices offering in the markets of the world in which his goods must be sold. In so many instances, our costs are reaching levels at which it will be well-nigh impossible to sell our exports at a profit.

I feel that the primary producer’s case, perhaps, is not properly and effectively presented to the arbitration court, or that the tribunal is not constituted in such a way that it can adequately give effect to the case presented to it. That may or may not be so. All I know is that these awards have reached the point where no further increases can be granted without doing damage to our export industries. Wool, dairying - including butter and cheese - and dried fruits are in this position. This list is by no means exhaustive.

Debate interrupted.

page 294

ADJOURNMENT

Parliamentary Allowances

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the.Senate do now adjourn.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– 1 am sorry to take up the time of ‘the Senate by speaking to the motion for the adjournment, but I do so because of an experience I have mad recently. I wish to refer to the gross injustice that is being done to members of this Parliament who bring their wives to Canberra and stay at the Hotel Kurrajong. Recently the control of the Hotel Kurrajong has passed to Commonwealth Hostels Limited, and therefore, I understand, the hotel is administered by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon). Might I say in passing, Mr. Deputy President, that when you get a bad Irishman, he is a bad one. You can be sure that he is descended from one of the worst of the tribes of Israel.

I have just received from the Hotel Kurrajong a bill for my wife and myself in respect of a fortnight’s accommodation and meals and the use of a heating appliance. In this climate you need a heating appliance, of course. The bill was for £54, an increase of £1 1 10s. on what I had to pay in respect of a similar period a couple of months ago for my wife and myself. We have to pay this extra £11 10s. a fortnight in order to conform, apparently, with the wishes of the shyster Shylock now running this hotel.

The other day an article appeared in the Melbourne “ Herald “, taking parliamentarians to task because the Government was paying, according to the article, £40,000 by way of a subsidy to carry on the dining room of Parliament House. Mr. Speaker, in another place, replied to the statements that were made by the person who wrote the article in the “ Herald “. The position is that the Government does subsidize the meals and other amenities provided in this establishment. There is no question about that. Nobody is quarrelling with that, except the newspaper concerned. Mr. Speaker did not deny that that was going on, but he pointed out that it was necessary.

People generally are under the impression, of course, that every member of the Parliament gets some concessions, but that does not apply to those who take their wives to the Hotel Kurrajong at present. I did not pay as much as £54 a fortnight for a suite for my wife and myself during all the time I was in London, staying at first-class hotels.

Senator Wright:

– What is the Canberra allowance for a fortnight?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– My friend talks about the Canberra allowance. He gets the Canberra allowance, but 1 arn not concerned about that at all. I am concerned now with the extra charge “that a married man who lives in a remote part of Australia has to pay when he brings his wife to stay in Canberra. The hotel does not make so great an extra charge to the person who is having only bed and breakfast. The Government does not make an extra charge to the chap who takes advantage of the subsidy applying to this place. We all get exactly the same amount of expenses, but the married man who brings his wife here is mulcted in an extra £1 1 10s. a fortnight. If I were to arrange with the Hotel Kurrajong to have only bed and breakfast, and if I took advantage of the subsidized meals provided in Parliament House, and if I travelled home at weekends, my expenses would be less and it would cost the Government an extra £38. In the case of an honorable senator from Western Australia, it would cost £100 extra. The point I make is that it is grossly unfair that the married man who brings his wife to Canberra and stays here over the weekends should be treated in this way.

The increases that have been imposed upon other people have not amounted to more than 12s. 6d. a week, but a member who brings his wife here has to pay an extra £2 12s. 6d. a week, which amounts to £5 5s. a week, or to £11 10s. a fortnight for himself and his wife. I consider that it is a gross injustice that we should be mulcted in that way just because the control of the hotel has been transferred from one department to another.

I desire to refer to another phase of this matter. Ministerial staff - secretaries, typists and other office staff - stay at places such as Lawley House. The accommodation charge for those people has risen from £8 0s. 6d. to £12 12s. a week. But that is not the worst feature of the matter. They pay the weekly tariff of £12 12s. for three weeks, and at the end of that time the tariff goes down to £8 8s. a week. Of course, at the end of three weeks the allowance paid to these people also drops considerably, to a sum much lower than that paid during the first three weeks. The Shylocks have determined that a week, for their purposes, commences on Saturday night. If you arrive on a Tuesday and stay for three weeks, you do not pay for three weeks’ board at £12 12s. a week; you pay for three weeks and three days. You pay at the rate of £12 12s. a week for three weeks, and then, because you have stayed three days over what the management considers is its week, you pay at the daily rate for the period from the Saturday to the Tuesday, even though you were not there then. That is a gross injustice on the people who come here in attendance on Ministers.

It is because of these injustices that I have raised this matter to-night. I am not concerned about the allowances that are paid. I think it is grossly unfair that a married man who brings his wife here should have to pay this extra charge, while a person paying the bed and breakfast rate does not pay so great an extra charge. There are very few in the hotel on the daily basis. This extra charge applies to only twelve or eighteen people, who bring their wives to Canberra. They all come from remote parts of Australia, some from the far west of New South Wales, some from the north-west of Victoria and others from Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. The position is that they are fined because they bring their wives to Canberra.

Senator Wright:

– Are you not paid £4 a day for the fourteen days in the fortnight?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That does not overcome the difficulty. As a lawyer, you should understand what I am saying. I have said that the charge covers only board and heating; it does not cover anything else. The amount that you receive does not cover the extra payments that you have to make here in Canberra.

Senator Wright:

– What else?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I am telling you. You would not recognize an injustice if you saw it in front of your boko.

Senator Wright:

– I am not looking at one now.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not concerned with you. My concern is with the Minister, and whether he can do something about removing this injustice that is being done to the few married men who bring their wives to Canberra. That is all I am concerned about.

The hotel is now under the control of a remote body which has not presented a proper balance-sheet, as the Department of the Interior did when it controlled the government hostels. Commonwealth Hostels Limited has been in operation for only about eighteen months. Whereas previously we were able to look at a balancesheet which showed either the profit or loss made by each hostel controlled by the Department of the Interior, we now have nothing of the kind. The company is late with its balance-sheet. Even in the Auditor-General’s report, the position is not stated as it was previously. We do not know whether or not the company is making a profit, although I am given to understand that it is and was doing so before it put this impost on us poor unfortunates who live at great distances from Canberra. The company has appointed additional staff to control the hotels and hostels. There are now superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, assistant directors, and so on, in addition to the people who are actually running the establishments. The extra expense of that staff has to be met.

If I go back to Adelaide every weekend and then return to Canberra for the sittings of the Parliament, it will cost the Government an additional £30 or £32 above the amount that we receive every day, to which Senator Wright has referred.

Senator Kendall:

– You get it only while you are travelling.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That is for travelling - going backwards and forwards.

Senator Kendall:

– But you do not get it when you are at home.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– You get it

While you are here, and you get it for the day you travel home and the day you travel back here.

Senator Kendall:

– Then you must take £8 off the amount that you are talking about.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– Very well. It costs £40 to take me to Adelaide and bring me back. If we take off the £8, it leaves £32. But there are other expenses, in addition to that, involved in transporting me backwards and forwards. It costs between £32 and £38 extra to take me home to Adelaide and bring me back here to attend the sittings of the Parliament. We do not mind paying the same increase as that which the other people have to pay, but we want the Minister to consider the case of a man who comes here with his wife because of the circumstances he is in. We think he should not be mulcted to a greater extent than other members of the Parliament who use the facilities of the House which are subsidized to the extent of £40,000 a year.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I have not been given notice by Senator O’Flaherty of the matter he has raised in the Senate to-night and consequently I have had no chance to check and see whether all the figures he has quoted are correct and complete.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– I have the documents.

Senator GORTON:

– Quite so. But on the figures that have been quoted, it appears to me that Senator O’Flaherty is complaining because he and his wife have been charged rather less than £2 per day each for staying in a hotel which has provided for that £2 not only bed and breakfast, but also lunch, dinner, lighting, some heating apparatus, and all hotel accommodations and facilities. That would work out, I suppose, at 30s. for bed and breakfast, 5s. for lunch, 5s. for dinner, and everything else thrown in free.

It does not seem to me to be an unusual or extortionate charge for those services. It appears to be completely covered by the allowance made by the Government to Senator O’Flaherty to enable him and his wife to stay in Canberra, the allowance being, as I understand it, £4 per day. That more than covers the £54 per fortnight-

Senator O’Flaherty:

– It covers that, but not the rest.

Senator GORTON:

– I think that it would more than cover the £54 per fortnight referred to by him. If the proposition is that Senator O’Flaherty should be paid £4 per day to enable him and his wife to stay here, but that the hotel should not charge what it is necessary for it to charge to make a profit or break even, even though that charge is less than £4 per day, it means that the taxpayers of the country should subsidize the staying in Canberra of members of Parliament and their wives. Frankly, Mr. Deputy President, I do not think that any case has been made out to indicate that the taxpayers should do that. The rise in charges at government hostels and other places exemplifies the fact that when marginal increases are made and the cost of services increases accordingly, the cost to guests in hotels also must rise. Those rising costs, I am reminded by Senator Kendall, have been matched by increased allowances which, as I have said, more than cover the charge. The £4 per day amounts to £56 per fortnight, or £2 more than the £54 that the honorable senator is complaining that he has been charged. It does not seem to me that a case has been made out for any further subsidy by the taxpayers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 August 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19600830_senate_23_s18/>.