1956-09-05 22 1 2 SENATE 93 0 1956-09-05 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers. 93 Questions 93 93 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator HENTY - My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. I direct his attention to a booklet on the Trans-Australia Railway in which appears a photograph of the Commonwealth Railways Provisions Store at Port Augusta. I ask the Minister whether this store is conducted by the Commonwealth Railways Department or is it let to private enterprise? Will he say whether the Commonwealth Government is engaged in the grocery business in connexion with the Trans-Australia Railways? 93 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - For many years, as a traveller on the Trans-Australia line, I have known of the existence of this store at Port Augusta, It has been there as long as I can remember, and it was established for the purpose of catering for the needs of employees of the Commonwealth Railways who were working at isolated points on the Trans-Australia line. Senator Henty may not be aware that there are no stores at those places. 93 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator Critchley - That store has done a wonderful job. 93 JZY 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - lt is still doing a wonderful job. Its operations extend to other government employees, such as teachers and members of the police force, but private residents in the town of Port Augusta are not allowed to trade at that store. It is a government concern which was established as a natural development of the Commonwealth Trans-Australia railway to cater primarily for the needs of the employees on that line who have not the amenities available to other people living in the town. 93 93 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I ask the Minister for Transport whether, in view of the fact that many West Australian people are finding great difficulty in arranging transport to Melbourne to attend the Olympic Games, the Minister will consider running additional trains to enable patrons to attend this important event. 93 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - Quite recently, an additional train was put into service on the Trans-Australia line, thus increasing the service to four a week. There is provision for a further train to be put on in October. I have not the exact details, as to when it will come into service, but my impression is it will be in time to cater for both the Olympic Games and the Christmas traffic. 93 93 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator CRITCHLEY - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. If he is not in a position to provide the answer to-day, will he secure information as to when the amenities, such as lounges, waiting rooms and other improvements, at the West Beach airport in South Australia will be completed, in order that the long-suffering public will be at least relieved of the inconvenience that they now endure? 93 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - I will refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, and let the honorable senator have the information as soon as I can. 93 93 K7Y 0 0 TANGNEY, Dorothy Senator TANGNEY - Is the Minister representing the Minister for Supply aware that heavy stock losses in the north-west of Western Australia are said to be due, directly or indirectly, to the Monte Bello atomic explosions? Is he aware that droving delays in bringing cattle from the interior through a tick-infested area to be transhipped to Perth, have led to serious stock shortages and deaths? If this is so will the Australian Government consider whether it or the British Government will pay some compensation to the owners for the loss of cattle in such circumstances? 93 JQP CP 0 0 COOPER, Walter Senator COOPER - Personally, I have not heard of the losses the honorable senator has mentioned; but if what she says is true, it is a very serious matter. I shall bring to the notice of the Minister for Supply the details of the question and obtain a considered reply for her as early as possible. 94 94 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator HANNAFORD - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. I preface it by stating that yesterday when I and other members of the Parliament were travelling to Canberra in a Viscount aeroplane which left Adelaide at approximately 7 a.m. we noticed on our port side another aeroplane which seemed to us to be flying at the same altitude, ls there any provision under the regulations of the Department of Civil Aviation that all aeroplanes flying on approximately the same route or in the same direction - I do not know whether this other aeroplane we noticed was flying on exactly the same route, or even whether it was going to the same destination - shall not fly at exactly the same height? 94 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - My understanding of the position is as Senator Hannaford has described it - that aeroplanes fly at different levels when in proximity one to the other. I have no knowledge, of course, of the particular circumstances to which he has referred. I shall refer the question to my colleague and get a reply for the honorable senator. 94 94 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - In view of the great economies that can be effected by the use of diesel-electric locomotives, which are estimated to be 30 per cent, cheaper to operate than steam locomotives, will the Minister for Shipping and Transport state whether there is in existence any overall Commonwealth plan to assist the States in financing conversion to these diesel units. This could make a most valuable contribution to lowering freight charges, and so help to reduce production and distributions costs, which are such a big element in the inflationary spiral that exists in Australia to-day. 94 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - The conduct of State railway systems, and the purchase and replacement of plant for those systems is, of course, quite obviously a function of the State authorities concerned. 94 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - I asked whether the Commonwealth had any plan to help them. 94 JZY 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - The Commonwealth has not been asked by any of the State railway authorities to purchase any equipment on their behalf. T emphasize that such a request could only be viewed in the light of the responsibilities of the State governments concerned. There is no doubt, as Senator O'Byrne has said, that dieselization is proving to be a boon to all systems, and progressively increasing steps have been taken by the various railway systems to replace their steam locomotives with diesel power. 94 94 K5X 0 0 SHEEHAN, James Senator SHEEHAN - As the Commonwealth is vitally interested in the provision of suitable transport for persons who wish to visit Canberra, will the Minister for Shipping and Transport ascertain from the New South Wales Department of Railways why rail services to Canberra are being curtailed. Will the Minister also endeavour to assist the State railways to keep trains running between Canberra and the capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney? 94 JZY LP 1 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - I shall have the position examined. I am not sure whether I correctly interpreted the honorable senator's question. Did he refer to the operation of trains within the Australian Capital Territory? 94 K5X 0 0 SHEEHAN, James Senator Sheehan - Yes. 94 JZY 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - I shall have the position examined and furnish the honorable senator with particulars of the service now provided by the Commonwealth Railways. 94 KQQ 0 0 LAUGHT, Keith Senator LAUGHT - The question that I direct to the Minister for Shipping and Transport is supplementary to that asked by Senator Sheehan. Will the Minister consider the possibility of commencing the rail service for persons travelling from Canberra to Melbourne at Yass, and providing a road transport link between Canberra and Yass? I believe that by so doing the travelling time between Canberra and Melbourne could be cut by approximately five hours. 94 JZY 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator PALTRIDGE - I shall have a look at the proposal. 94 94 K19 0 0 POKE, Albert Senator POKE - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is the Postmaster-General aware that there is a possibility that outside labour will be brought in to assist in the sorting of mails in Tasmania? Is he aware that if such labour is used it will be regarded most unfavorably by members of the Postal Workers Union? Does he not think that this would aggravate the present situation; and will he take steps to prevent the engagement of such casual labour in view of the present situation? 95 JQP CP 0 0 COOPER, Walter Senator COOPER - I shall put the matter before the Postmaster-General and ask him if he will give me a report on the questions submitted by the honorable senator. 95 95 KAC 0 0 VINCENT, Victor Senator VINCENT - I direct a question to you, Mr. President. It concerns a wooden building that is being constructed on the roof of Parliament House. Can you tell the Senate who is responsible for this particularly ugly building being put on the roof of Parliament House where the general public may see it? Why is it necessary? Has its construction and design been approved by any competent authority? Has the matter been brought to your notice? 95 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I shall look into the matter and let the honorable senator have a reply at a later date. 95 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan) read a first time. Second Reading. 95 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. Before speaking on the subject-matter of the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1956, I should like to advise honorable senators that this is the first of a series of six tariff bills which the Senate will be asked to consider. In each case, the bill is designed to give effect to tariff alterations which were introduced by resolutions in another place some time ago. As honorable senators are aware, immediately following the introduction of tariff resolutions, duties are collected in accordance with the alterations proposed, and therefore the amendments contained in the bills are actually in operation, but the passing of the bills is necessary to give statutory effect to those amendments. The bill now before honorable senators covers proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956. In the main, these amendments are consequent upon adoption by the Government of recommendations made by the Tariff Board. Other proposed amendments have as their objective the clarification of existing tariff items or to extend, in some instances, the scope of existing concessional items. As will be apparent from the " Summary of Alterations " which I have had prepared for the information of honorable senators, the proposed amendments cover a comprehensive cross-section of consumer goods and aids to production which are being commercially produced in Australia. Of the principal commodities in respect of which the Tariff Board has recommended that tariff assistance be accorded, I mention the following: - Preserved ginger; Bean seed for cultivation purposes; Dehydrated vegetables; Upholstery moquettes, ribbons and galloons, tyre cord and tyre cord fabric, and cotton canvas and duck piece goods; Aluminium angles, bars, rods, pipes, wire, plates, sheets and strip; Fuel injection equipment for compression ignition engines; Direct current mill type motors; Covered cable and wire as used in electrical undertakings; Forged table knives, domestic aluminiumware. incandescent lamps and lanterns, domestic heat storage cooking stoves and ranges and safety pins; Hacksaw blades, woodworking chisels, car- penters' braces and plumbers' vises; Various chemical products such as - Naphthalene, cresylic acid, phenol, formaldehyde, magnesium sulphate, methyl chloride, and various phosphorus derivatives; Vitreous enamels; Wristlet watch cases: Goloshes, sand shoes, boots and shoes; Greaseproof wrapping paper, vegetable parchment paper, and filter paper; Motor vehicle front axle assemblies; Synthetic resins; Vacuum cleaners; and Continuous filament acetate rayon yarn. Decreased duties, based on Tariff Board recommendations, are proposed in respect of the following commodities: - Filament lamps of the types ordinarily used in motor vehicles for lighting purposes; Commercial type heat storage cooking stoves and ranges; Cinematograph films produced especially for viewing by children; and Cork manufacturers n.e.i. Amendments which are proposed in order to make the intention of the item more readily understandable relate to - Punching and shearing machines (metal working); Cloth pressing machines; Chain hoists and chain pulley blocks; Vertical drilling machines; and Fork lift trucks. Provision is also made in the bill for the duty-free admission of drawings by Australian students or Australian artists resident abroad for a period not exceeding seven years. I do not propose at this stage to take up any more of the Senate's time in traversing the circumstances associated with the numerous variations set out in the bill. If, however, honorable senators desire to be more fully informed in relation to any individual items, I shall endeavour to enlighten them in that direction when the items come up for consideration. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 96 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan) read a first time. Second Reading. 96 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. Honorable senators will note that this bill deals with only one item of the Excise Tariff 1921-1956. The amendment proposed is of a concessional nature, and is designed to exempt from the payment of excise duty spirits used for scientific and educational purposes by approved technical colleges and other educational institutions. For many years spirits used in universities for scientific purposes have been delivered free of excise duty, but in the case of technical colleges, agricultural colleges, mining schools, forestry schools, and the like, any spirits used by them attracted a duty of 25s. a proof gallon. Individually the quantity of spirits used by these colleges and schools is small, but as virtually all those institutions come within the jurisdiction of the education departments of the various States, it was considered that the Commonwealth should not add to the already substantial expenditure incurred by the States in their upkeep by collecting an excise duty on spirits for educational and research purposes. I am confident that honorable senators will readily acknowledge the valuable contribution being made in the fields of education and research by colleges and schools such as I have mentioned, and will support the passage of this bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 96 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan) read a first time. Second Reading. 96 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is complementary to Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill 1956. In each case the amendments proposed are designed to keep the tariff items appearing in the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) in line with related items in the customs tariff and, at the same time, maintain the commitments which Australia has undertaken in respect of various goods of Canadian origin. As honorable senators know, Australia has certain obligations to Canada under the trade agreement concluded with that country in 1931. Accordingly, when amendments are made to items in the customs tariff covering goods on which specific commitments have been undertaken with Canada, it is necessary to effect similar amendments to the corresponding items under the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference). Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 97 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan) read a first time. Second Reading. 97 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to extend duty free admission into Australia of timber and timber products' which are produced in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and, as indicated in the schedule to the bill, are covered by specified portions of Customs Tariff items 291, 292 and 293. The action proposed is consequent upon the adoption by the Government of recommendations made by the Tariff Board. Honorable senators will see that the first item in the schedule, namely, Item No. 21, relates to plywood and that this item has been qualified by the provision " as prescribed by departmental by-laws ". The object of this provision is to enable by-laws to be issued to cover 12,000,000 square feet of plywood, on a3/16-in. basis, per annum. The limitation of duty-free admission to 12,000,000 square feet per annum was recommended by the Tariff Board but 1 understand that this issue is again before the board and that an increase in the quantity to be admitted duty free is being sought. Item No. 22 in the schedule to the bill covers, in broad terms, logs, spars and sawn and dressed timbers. It is not intended to apply any limitation on the quantities of these products admitted duty free. I feel sure that the action proposed should prove of material assistance in the economic development of Papua and New Guinea and I, therefore, commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 97 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan; read a first time. Second Reading. 97 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is complementary to the trade agreement concluded last year between Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and is designed to give effect to the tariff concessions which Australia has undertaken to accord to certain goods which are produced or manufactured in the Federation. Honorable senators will recall that the text of the trade agreement was tabled in this chamber in October last. In the circumstances, I feel that it is unnecessary for me to deal in detail with the various features of that agreement. The tariff concessions which are embodied in this bill relate to fruit juices, unmanufactured tobacco, beeswax, tung oil, citrus oils, crude asbestos and chrome ore. In each case, other than unmanufactured tobacco, the bill provides that the goods shall be dutiable at the rate in force under the British preferential tariff. On unmanufactured tobacco the rate of duty proposed is 9d. per lb. less than the British preferential tariff. Apart from tung oil, which is already free of duty from all sources, the concessions proposed have been in operation for a number of years in respect of one or other of the territories of the federation. The effect of the bill is therefore merely to extend the preferential treatment on the goods concerned to the federation as a whole. Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 97 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator O'Sullivan) I read a first time. Second Reading. 97 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The bill now before honorable senators proposes to implement, insofar as variations to the Customs Tariff schedule are concerned, those tariff concessions undertaken by Australia during the negotiations at Geneva earlier this year under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The proposed amendments in this bill do not implement all the tariff concessions granted by. Australia at Geneva. For example, Australia accorded various primage concessions, the benefit of certain intermediate tariff rates of duty and the binding of various margins of preference to certain countries. Other action has, however, been taken to give effect to these changes. The bill also proposes to give effect to decisions taken by the Government to adopt certain recommendations made by the Tariff Board in regard to the protective needs of various industries to which I will refer at a later stage. I should, however, make it quite clear to honorable senators that these particular amendments are not not associated in any way with those arising from the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade negotiations at Geneva. The " Memorandum of Alterations " which has already been circulated to honorable senators sets out in detail the extent of the tariff and primage variations accorded by Australia at Geneva. It also sets out the extent of the tariff changes based on Tariff Board recommendations. At the Geneva negotiations Australia exchanged concessions with Germany, the United States of America, and Austria. As was anticipated when Australia decided to take part in the 1956 conference, the scope for negotiation was not comparable with that of previous occasions. Australia's export trade should, however, benefit from the following concessions: - Germany: Fresh apples, meat extracts, frozen rabbits, lead ore, and eucalyptus tanning extracts; United States of America: Eucalyptus tanning extracts, frozen rabbits, eucalyptus oil, arid catgut; Austria: Honey, meat extract, and eucalyptus tanning extracts. Honorable senators will, of course, be aware that it is a principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that a concession granted by any contracting party also applies to all other members. Apart from the direct concessions, Australian export trade will, therefore, benefit from the negotiations concluded between other contracting parties at Geneva. Tariff and primage concessions given by Australia, in broad terms, involve - Duty reductions on - Textile bleaching and dyeing machinery; battery eliminating devices and choke coils for wireless receivers; spectacle frames; and beer. Binding of the duties at existing most favoured nation level on - Embroideries in the piece, gold leaf, microscopes, and rubber, canvas, and composition belting (other than conveyor belting). Removal of primage duty on - Gold leaf; various mining and metal lurgical machinery; weighing machines; various road-making machinery; textile bleaching and dyeing machines; machines and machinery not elsewhere included; battery eliminating devices and chokes for wireless receivers; various gas appliances; rubber, canvas and composition belting - other than conveyor belting; various fancy boxes; magic lanterns and mounted lenses and camera accessories. From Australia's point of view the outcome of these negotiations is reasonably balanced. The negotiations cannot, of themselves, be regarded as of major significance to our export trade, but they will, nevertheless, improve the market prospects for a number of our primary products. Honorable senators will readily appreciate that the state of Australia's balance of payments is now such that the Government cannot overlook any means of expanding exports or of raising the returns from exports. The concessions accorded by Australia are not likely to have any adverse effect on local industries which are conducted on an economic and efficient basis. The proposed tariff variations associated with Tariff Board recommendations, to which I referred earlier, relate to electrically-operated hand tools covered by tariff items 176 (u)(2) and 176 (u)(3), various dry colours, dyes and pigments covered by items 231 (a) and 231 (e)(2), synthetic oils and preparations containing synthetic resins covered by item 232 (e) and synthetic resins used in the paint industry formerly included in item 232 (e), but now covered by item 369 (c). As will be seen from Part B of the memorandum already in the hands of honorable senators, some increases in the duties on these goods are proposed, and on the remainder the duties either remain unchanged or have been reduced. These variations give full effect to Tariff Board recommendations. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned. 99 Questions Debate resumed from 4th September (vide page 92), on motion by Senator Marriott - That, in the opinion of the Senate, the present practice of broadcasting the proceedings of the Commonwealth Parliament should either cease oi be varied to provide for the broadcasting of portions only of those proceedings, such as question time in both Houses and important speeches in either House; and that this resolution be forwarded for the consideration of the Government. 99 KSS South Australia 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER . - In continuing my remarks on the motion moved by Senator Marriott, I should like to state emphatically that I favour the abolition of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings of both Houses of the Parliament. As I support that portion of the motion, automatically I am not in favour of a portion only of parliamentary proceedings, such as question time and important speeches, being broadcast. I repeat that after studying procedure in this chamber and in another place I have come to the conclusion that very often questions are not asked primarily to elicit information. We have the privilege of asking questions, with or without notice; and the fundamental principle behind that privilege is that honorable senators can elicit information that is important to the community. A study of this matter leads me to the conclusion that the greater proportion of questions asked in this chamber and in another place are designed not to elicit information but to disseminate subtle propaganda. Whether this motion is carried or not, I greatly favour, as far as the Senate is concerned, questions being placed on the notice-paper. Strangely enough, I am not a great advocate of questions being asked without notice in this chamber. The questions asked are directed to the various departments. As there are 22 Ministers of whom only five are in this chamber, it is a reasonable assumption that, on the average, only five out of 22 questions asked without notice can be answered directly in this chamber. Because of that fact alone I should much prefer to see questions placed on the notice-paper so that the responsible Minister could give the chamber a considered reply. I do not think it is a reflection on any Minister as the representative in this chamber of a Minister in another place to have to reply, " I shall refer that to my colleague, and I ask the honorable senator to place his question on the notice-paper". Therefore, it would be much better if all questions were put on the notice-paper. For that reason and various others which I shall not emphasize again, I could not agree that questions only should be broadcast. When we consider whether certain selected subjects only should be broadcast we open up a very wide field. Who is to be the arbitrator, judge or umpire to decide what particular speeches on what subjects should be broadcast? Therefore, I come back to my first submission, that in existing circumstances parliamentary debates in this chamber and in another place should not be broadcast. Why do I say that? 99 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator Hannaford - I have no idea. 99 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - The honorable senator says he has no idea. I can give honorable senators one or two reasons why I have reached this conclusion. First of all, supporters of the continuation of broadcasting have failed, at least to my way of thinking, to produce any tangible argument to show that broadcasting has improved the political knowledge, or even increased the political interest, of the great majority of radio listeners in Australia. Yet, that was the original intention of broadcasting parliamentary proceedings. 99 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator Hannaford - Does not the honorable senator think that people are better informed now? 100 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - All 1 am going to say is that perhaps 8 per cent, of the people are better informed; but that 8 per cent, represents the hard core of listeners to political broadcasts. Do not let any one deceive himself by thinking that more than 8 per cent, of radio listeners listen to parliamentary broadcasts. The figures I cited previously can be verified; they come from a very sound authority. They were tabulated when broadcasting was a novelty. Since then, it is reasonable to assume that the number of people who listen to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings has decreased. Senator Hannaford asked by interjection whether the people's knowledge of parliamentary affairs had not been improved by the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. It has been my experience that the 8 per cent, of listeners - the hard core that I mentioned earlier - belong to one or other of the great political parties. They comprise men and women who, in normal circumstances, would scan the daily newspapers or read " Hansard " in order to keep abreast of political matters. Those avenues of information are still available to such people. But that 8 per cent, of listeners could not, from such other channels of information, realize the showmanship that is engaged in during certain of the parliamentary proceedings. I am fortified in this opinion by the fact that every previous speaker who has opposed Senator Marriott's motion has said that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is unreal. I remind honorable senators that these are not my words, but the words of previous speakers, who have said that we give to the public an unreal impression because only certain selected subjects are debated when the proceedings are being broadcast. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who engages in debate with a great deal of vigour, said that debates on certain subjects are arranged to take place when the proceedings are being broadcast. Every speaker who has supported the continuation of parliamentary broadcasts has agreed with Senator Marriott's opinion that the microphone rules the Parliament. As T. said earlier, all previous speakers who have supported the motion have stated that the usual procedure has been altered to enable particular matters to be debated when we are on the air. As we have bien told, the reason for this practice is to gain the public ear. That is a very soft impeachment that parliamentary broadcasts present an unreal picture of the proceedings in both houses of the Parliament. In my opinion, second-reading speeches, although valuable, are not half as valuable as the discussions that take place during the committee stage of bills. At that stage, in the cut and thrust of debate, clauses, sentences, phrases and even single words are debated. To my way of thinking, the committee stage is of the very essence of parliamentary debating, and good legislating. Let us consider the views of the public in this connexion. The majority of those who listen to parliamentary broadcasts say that the committee stage of the proceedings is not suitable for broadcasting. Neither do they consider that divisions should be broadcast. They favour the elimination of the broadcasting of these proceedings. But, if the public is to be fully informed, I consider that the proceedings in committee should be broadcast. I heard some very interesting remarks last night about what should be done in the broadcasting time occupied by divisions. I might say that I did not, by any means, agree with some of the remarks. Last night, also, a certain honorable senator gave us a very interesting talk about what might go over the air. I could relate many interesting things that have occurred in this chamber that I should not like broadcast. Last night, we had an opportunity to observe the attitude of one particular senator towards the suggestion that the Senate should bc abolished. 1 recall two very admirable men stating on the hustings that they favoured the abolition of the Senate. Eventually they were elected to the Senate, and held high office in this chamber. When the first man made his maiden speech, he did not say one word about the abolition of the Senate. The second man apparently took the view that, as his colleague had said nothing on that subject, he should express himself as being in favour of the abolition of the Senate. While he was engaged fervently and theatrically in so doing, his friend pulled his coat and said, " Sit down, for goodness sake. You are in the Senate now ". Thereupon, the honorable senator sat down without completing his remarks about the abolition of the Senate. 101 KSL 0 0 MAHER, Edmund Senator Maher - He threw overboard his principles. 101 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - I am not discussing what he threw overboard; I am merely saying that he proceeded no further concerning the abolition of the Senate. 101 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator Critchley - There are still a few of use who think that it should be abolished. 101 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator Hannaford - But not you! 101 JSB 0 0 CRITCHLEY, John Senator Critchley - Yes, I am one of those who do. 101 KSS 0 0 MATTNER, Edward Senator MATTNER - Many people who are interested in broadcasting as a whole contend that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings interferes seriously with advertised programmes. The views of the 92 per cent, of listeners who do not usually listen to parliamentary broadcasts should be considered. One of their chief grounds of complaint is, that owing to the uncertain times and days of sittings of the Parliament, there are many occasions on which ordinary programmes have to be either cancelled or altered. I could cite the number of complaints that are received by the Australian Broadcasting Commission when advertised programmes are cancelled because of parliamentary broadcasts. As we all know, when we attend parliamentary sittings we do not know their probable duration. I do not know whether any timetable for debates is arranged. Even the Government itself has no idea how long debates will last, and if it does know when a sessional period will terminate, it successfully keeps that information to itself. Certainly, private members of this chamber do not know how long sessional periods will last. Of course, that is not the fault of the broadcasting. I should not like any honorable senator to think that 1 am blaming broadcasting for that state of affairs. What I am saying is, that it would greatly assist the people in charge of broadcasting if they knew that the sittings would end on a certain day. lt would assist materially if we could have definite information as to when Parliament will be sitting and for exactly how long it will be sitting. I remind the Senate that the Australian Broadcasting Commission in particular has to arrange its programmes weeks and sometimes months ahead. Every time there is a cancellation or alteration of a programme that has been arranged for transmission over the Australian Broadcasting Commission network, a great deal of expenditure and work is incurred in making adjustments. The public certainly objects strongly to any alteration to an advertised programme. I have pointed out already that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has brought to Australia some of the leading artists of the world. I might mention also that earlier this year it was believed that the parliamentary session would end on 31st May. Acting on that belief, the Australian Broadcasting Commission arranged for one of the world's leading pianists to broadcast on 19th June. That orchestralconcert which included performances by this pianist was advertised to be broadcast on 19th June, but, because Parliament sat longer than was expected, it had to be cancelled. At other times, operas which have been arranged for weeks in advance have had to be cancelled hurriedly, often causing a great deal of inconvenience to the listening public. Any cancellation or alteration must cause inconvenience. Even if a particular item is transferred to another network, it means that a part of the programme on that other network has to be cancelled. Again, in many instances, arrangements have been made weeks ahead for broadcasting these programmes throughout the whole of Australia over land lines which have been booked from the Postmaster-General's Department. Any cancellation or alteration of the programme causes great inconvenience and disruption in that department. No matter from what angle we examine the question, it is safe to say that if we abolished the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings we would eliminate a great potential cause of inconvenience and cost resulting from changes in advertised programmes. Another point is that programmes are often recorded before the actual date of broadcast. What is more, they are usually paid for long before they go over the air. It may not be possible to broadcast any programme that is cancelled for many weeks after the original advertised date. This means that valuable tape is taken up in holding the item awaiting broadcast; and there is an acute shortage of recording tape in Australia. Another important point is that an item that might have had a tremendous amount of importance and interest at the particular date at which it was originally intended to be broadcast loses that value very often if broadcast at any other time. In conclusion, I reiterate that I support Senator Marriott's motion. As I favour the abolition of broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, I do not support the broadcasting of proceedings either at question time or even when important speeches are being delivered. It is my firm belief that before parliamentary proceedings were broadcast the standard of debate in this chamber was higher than it is today. For those reasons, I support the complete abolition of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. 102 K0Z Tasmania 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT . - Let me make my position clear at the outset. I am not afraid of anything that I say in this chamber being broadcast to the public of Australia. Therefore, I oppose the motion. It is my belief that any honorable senator, or any member of the House of Representatives, who is prepared to shirk his responsibility to let his electors know what he is doing and saying should not continue to hold his seat in the Parliament. 102 KSL 0 0 MAHER, Edmund Senator Maher - Do the people listen? 102 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - A great many do. Senator Marriott bases his argument on three grounds. The first is that the microphone rules the Parliament. His second is that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is damaging to the prestige of Parliament; and his third ground is that it is distasteful to the listening public. I take his first point, that the microphone rules Parliament. So far as I can glean from Senator Marriott's argument, the only ground he has for making that assertion is that when important speeches are to be made either in another place or in this chamber by prominent members of either the Liberal, Country or Labour party, they are usually delivered at a time when it is believed that most of the general public will be listening. Can it be said that because that is so the microphone rules Parliament? If, for instance, the Prime Minister wished to make a statement of the utmost national importance, is it not natural that he would seek to deliver that statement at a time when most people would be listening? There is nothing wrong with that. It is in the interests of the general public that he should deliver such important statements at times when the majority of the people would be listening. The parties usually agree as to when statements shall be broadcast. For instance, when the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) is about to introduce his budget, do we not all agree that he should introduce it at a time most suitable to be heard by the great majority of the general public? It is only fair that the listeners should hear the chief speaker for the other side also. I am sure the electors would agree that those speakers should be allowed to broadcast at the time most convenient for the majority of the radio listeners. Senator Marriott has said that the microphone rules the Parliament, but I do not agree. The honorable senator also said that broadcasting was damaging the prestige of the Parliament. Just what does he mean? That is a matter that rests with individuals. Last night, Senator Brown, who was formerly President of the Senate, gave good reasons why the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings should be continued. He presided over this chamber for many years, and should know whether the broadcasting of proceedings is an advantage. Senator Mattner, who was also formerly President of the Senate, is in a similar position to judge. Both those honorable senators were here before the proceedings were broadcast, and they are in a better position to judge than is Senator Marriott, who was not here before the broadcasting of proceedings was instituted, although I know that he is sincere and honest in trying to form a judgment. I believe that we can discard the opinion of Senator Marriott in comparing the quality of the debates before and after the broadcasting of the proceedings was introduced. If the standard of debating has deteriorated, it is no credit to the more recently elected honorable senators. I do not agree with the statement that the standard has fallen. When there was an influx of new senators, which largely changed the appearance of the Senate on the Government side, I remarked at the time that there were some outstanding men among the new senators. The quality of their speeches was very good for a new team, and it has improved since then. Therefore, on that point I do not agree with Senator Marriott, nor do I agree with Senator Mattner, and if he casts a slur on the debating qualities of his colleagues he does so alone. I did notice that when Senator McMullin was elected to the presidential chair and Senator Mattner vacated it, there was a slight deterioration in the debates on the floor of the chamber. That is the only deterioration that I have noticed. Senator Marriott has claimed that the broadcasting of proceedings is distasteful to the listening public. I agree that that might be said of some honorable senators and some listeners. Many people do not like to hear the truth, but if it were left to the press they would never get the facts. There was an illustration of that point last night when the honorable member for East Sydney in the House of Representatives (Mr. Ward) delivered one of the most brilliant speeches of his career. Not one line about it appeared in the press to-day, but the Sydney "Daily Telegraph" published a vicious attack on the Senate under the name of Alan Reid, who likes cheap publicity and does not care whether his writing is helpful to Australia or not. The press did not give one line to many speakers in the budget debate in another place, and it did not refer to the opinions expressed in this chamber yesterday by honorable senators, but the scurrilous attack on the Senate was given nearly three columns. Is that the sort of treatment that Senator Marriott expects to get from the press? Before the proceedings of the Parliament were broadcast, reports in the press were one-sided. The press of Australia is politically biased. How can it give both sides of the picture in such circumstances? Not one newspaper in Australia has given both sides of the proceedings in this Parliament in the past decade. Speeches of honorable members and honorable senators, which should be known to the public, are not given one line in the press. If the people relied on the newspapers they would not know that those members of the Parliament were in Canberra. I know that some members of Parliament are more fortunate and are played up by the press, but those who receive that preference should not kid themselves. It is only temporary. At various times, the press has written up the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Arthur Fadden) and the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) as great men, and within a month or so it has done its best, figuratively speaking, to kick them to death. 103 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - I thought the honorable senator said that the press was biased. 103 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I know that Senator Marriott gets a good press in Tasmania. Good luck to him. I give him credit for doing a good job from the Liberal party's point of view, but are his own colleagues getting as good a press in Tasmania? No. It would suit Senator Marriott if the broadcasting of Parliament were discontinued, but it would be detrimental to his colleagues. But would the press suit him next year if he trod on the corns of some of its members? I suggest that that would be a completely different story. The general public should not have to rely solely on the press for information about the doings of Parliament, but is entitled to hear the actual broadcasts of proceedings so that it will be fully informed of the real facts of the matters debated in this place. Senator Mattner said that there is no evidence to show that people have become better informed about the doings of the Parliament since our proceedings have been broadcast. I believe that the speeches that we have heard in this very debate have proved that the people are better informed. Senator Brown said that a person came up to him once and asked him about certain occurrences in the Parliament. Senator Brown was not in the Senate at the time, and he said that he had to talk his way out of that question. I have had much the same experience, and I have discovered that many people listen attentively to the debates in the Parliament and know all about what happens here. They know the nature of the bills before the Parliament and the points in them that may affect them favorably or adversely. I suggest that Senator Mattner has not brought forward any evidence at all to indicate that since the advent of parliamentary broadcasts the people have not become better informed. Indeed, the honorable senator reminds me of the lawyer, cross-examining a witness in court, who asked, " Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no ". If the witness answered " yes " he was gone; and if he answered " no " he was also gone. The argument of Senator Mattner followed that line, and would be regarded by some people as a variation of the thimble and pea trick. The honorable senator also said that the most important part of the debate on any bill took place at the committee stage. Senator Brown said that the debate at the second-reading stage was most important, and should be broadcast. So, of these two ex-Presidents of the Senate, whose views on procedure in the Senate should have some weight, one says that the committee proceedings should be broadcast and the other says that the second-reading proceedings should be broadcast. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the whole of the debate on all bills should be broadcast. 104 K6P 0 0 BROWN, Gordon Senator Brown - The public should hear the speeches during the second-reading debate because in those speeches the general principals of bills are outlined. 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I thank Senator Brown for his assistance, and I agree with him completely. I also agree with Senator Mattner. It is quite obvious that all our proceedings should be broadcast. It is no good trying to kid ourselves that we can hoodwink the people; I am quite sure that we shall never be capable of doing that. If, as has been suggested, it is boring for some people to listen to a long series of divisions being broadcast, it is equally boring for us to have to take part in them. 104 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - Are. we hoodwinking the general public when we pass legislation on Tuesdays and Thursdays - days upon which our proceedings are not broadcast? 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - We should be hoodwinking the public if we did not broadcast the whole of our proceedings. 104 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - What about Tuesdays and Thursdays when our proceedings are not broadcast? 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - It does not matter what day it is; if the Senate's proceedings are to be broadcast, all of them should be broadcast. I do not agree with the writer of the article, to which I have referred, that the Senate is decaying and is fighting for its survival. On the contrary, the Senate is in a dominant position to-day, whereas the House of Representatives very often has to fight for its survival. The Senate acts as a check on the House of Representatives and, therefore, it is very important that although the public should know what is going on in the other place, it should also know what is going on in the Senate. If honorable members in another place wish to behave at times like a lot of Kilkenny cats, the public should ' know about it, just as they should know when a serious debate is taking place there. I agree with the honorable senators who have stated that the standard of debate in this chamber has improved considerably since our proceedings have been broadcast, and I completely disagree with those senators who have said that it has not so improved. The only way in which it may not have improved is by reason of the fact that Senator Mattner is no longer President, and now takes part in our debates. 104 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - Senator Aylett cannot help being personal. 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I did not hear what the honorable senator who interjected said, but he is not in a position to judge the standard of debate in this chamber because he has taken his seat here only comparatively recently. 104 KT8 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator McCallum - He would be in a position to judge if he had listened to the broadcasts of our proceedings before he became a senator. 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I thank Senator McCallum for his interjection. Senator Marriott is in no position to tell honorable senators who have been members of the Senate for many years that the standard of debate has deteriorated since the introduction of broadcasting. I for one completely disagree with him. 104 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - I said that the standard of debate deteriorated when our proceedings were being broadcast. Do not misrepresent me. 104 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - Senator Marriott's argument is that the standard of debate has deteriorated because the time allowed honorable senators for speaking has been reduced. I believe that the reduction of the length of speeches has considerably improved our debating standards. If Senator Marriott were to record one of his speeches that lasted for an hour and one of his speeches that lasted for half an how. and then were to listen to them, I am sure that he would agree with me that the shorter speech was better than the longer one. There can be no doubt that shorter speeches are more informative and better in all respects, than long ones. In that respect our position has not deteriorated because when we are not on the air we like to make long speeches such as those referred to by Senator Marriott. 105 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - Stick to the truth. 105 K0Z 0 0 AYLETT, William Senator AYLETT - I am sticking to the truth right through, because I am speaking as one who has had years of experience in the Senate. Senator Marriott has not had adequate experience to back the opinions that he expressed. Many senators, including myself, can speak of our experience in the Senate both before and after broadcasting was introduced. Many Australians would agree with me that there is no reason why we should wait and see what is done by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or the House of Representatives or Senate in America. One honorable senator stated that if broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was a desirable thing, it would have been adopted in the assemblies to which I have just referred. Surely, Australia can go forward on its own initiative without having to follow other countries. Surely, we do not have to follow them like little children. It has been said that the public can be informed about the doings of the Parliament through the pages of " Hansard "; but how many people read " Hansard "? Only a handful of people receive that publication and read it. But apart from broadcasting, " Hansard " is the only means by which the people generally can learn the facts of our debates. It is idle to talk about the press reporting our proceedings, because the press never has given, and never will give, the whole of two sides of any story. Therefore, we are left with " Hansard ", and, as I have said, " Hansard " is read by only a handful of people. If it were not for broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament, only a handful of people in Australia would ever have the opportunity to know what transpired in another place or in this chamber. It is stupid to say that they would get the information from " Hansard ". It is just as -stupid as the comment, " The House of Lords docs not do it. The House of Commons and the Senate of the United States of America do not do it ". Should we stay in the doldrums, hanging behind all the time, or should we take the opportunity to improve the knowledge of the people about Parliament? Why not take the initiative and take advantage of broadcasting? That is what we did when the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was introduced. We were not afraid to let the people outside of Parliament know what happened here or to allow them to be the judge, after hearing the speeches of members both here and in another place, whether they would allow us to represent them. If the electors disagree with what their representatives say in speeches broadcast from Parliament they can record their judgment at the ballot-box. Honorable senators and members in another place should never squib the issue, irrespective of what party they belong to, by refusing to express over the air from Parliament their views on a bill or on any other subject. 105 KT8 New South Wales 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator McCALLUM . - I am grateful to Senator Marriott for bringing this matter before the Senate, because it requires a good deal of serious attention and debate. Perhaps there are some evils which have attended the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, but I am not prepared to admit that Senator Marriott, or any other honorable senator who has supported this motion, has proved his case. One of the arguments is that the standard of debate has declined considerably since parliamentary proceedings have been broadcast, but I am not convinced of that. A little while ago I read the report of a debate which took place in this House 35 years ago, and of a similar debate in another place, and - it pains me to record I did not think, their views' profound or their conclusions well assured. I thought it was one of the feeblest debates I had ever read. Long before broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was introduced, I sat in the galleries of various legislatures - in both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament, in the South Australian House of Assembly, in both Houses of the Federal Parliament when it met in Melbourne, and in the House of Commons. Although I listened to good debates in all those places, many speeches were of a low standard. lt has been argued that when Parliament is being broadcast members and senators forget about the relevance of their remarks 10 the subject or the bill under discussion, and address themselves to the multitude outside. That sort of thing happened long before broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was introduced. In 1821, during the sixteenth Congress of the United States of America, a gentleman named Felix Walker, who represented a district of North Carolina, was speaking at inordinate length and apparently to the complete boredom of his audience. Congressmen started to shout, " Question! Question! ", but according to the record, he persisted, saying that he was " bound to make a speech for Buncombe ". Buncombe happened to be a county in his district. That incident has given a new word to the language, because " buncombe " now means " irrelevant and specious matter " and has finally come to mean " nonsense ". That happened before the broadcasting of parliament, and I doubt whether there is more of it now than in those days. Two tests can be applied to determine whether Senator Marriott's contentions are correct. One is by comparing the debates recorded in " Hansard " before parliamentary broadcasting was introduced with those recorded since its introduction, and I doubt whether any deterioration in the standard of debate will be found. Good speakers and poor speakers contributed to the debates in both periods. Another, and easier, test is to compare debates when parliament was on the air with those when it was not. Good debates have taken place when Parliament was not being broadcast, and also extremely good debates have taken place when it was on the air. The speeches of individual senators do not vary greatly. As far as I am concerned, the speech I am now making is exactly the same as it would have been if Parliament were not on the air. I would have prepared it in the same way and would have expressed the same thoughts in the same sort of language as I am now addressing to you, Mr. President. In another place, an honorable member once seemed to forget that he was addressing the House and devoted his attention to the uncounted multitude outside, but he was soon stopped by the Speaker and reminded that he was addressing the Chair. Most honorable senators in this House always realize that they are speaking to the Chair and to their fellow senators. In my opinion, there is no conclusive evidence that the standard of debate has deteriorated since the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was introduced. The evidence is either neutral or the other way. A curious argument was used by Senator Marriott, that over the air the voice of a speaker was very important. That may be so, but is not the voice equally important in the House or at a public meeting? A microphone improves the sound of some voices. If a speaker has a weak voice or if his voice is monotonous, its volume will be increased and its quality will sound far better over the air, and although people in his immediate audience may not care for it, the radio listeners may gain a very favorable impression. That argument of Senator Marriott's may therefore be dismissed. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said that whatever value may come to a man because of his voice and presentation, what counts most in any speech is the matter and the force with which it is delivered. I have heard speakers whose voices at close range were not attractive but who, over the air, conveyed the impression that they were possessed of sound knowledge and were able to present their matter in a vigorous and convincing fashion. 106 K3R ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - That may be only from the point of view of the Senate. The public might get a wrong impression. 106 KT8 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator MCCALLUM - That may be so, but whether there is a microphone or not, the quality of the matter and the way in which it is presented counts most. It is true that the various undertones and overtones of the human voice may be given a different quality over the air. It is necessary that the electors should know what Parliament is doing, and the more they know about it the better, and the closer the guard they can keep on our proceedings the safer will be our democracy. lt is a fact that the press reports far less of what happens in Parliament than it used to. I do not intend to join in an attack on the press, nor do I agree with certain sentiments which I heard expressed a little earlier, that the press is never fair, but the amount of political matter reported in the press is far smaller than it used to be. No debates are now reported as fully as in former years. There was a time when even trivial debates in Parliament were fully reported. 1 can remember, as a boy, reading the parliamentary debates in the newspapers, and all the characters in that period, not only in the Parliament of New South Wales, but also in most parliaments throughout Australia were well known to me. At this instant, I recall reading a report in the Sydney press of a speech delivered in the Queensland Parliament by Mr. Kidston, who was then the Premier of that State. To-day, we read very little in the Sydney press about proceedings in other States, and not enough about what happens in the Commonwealth Parliament, or even in the Parliament of New South Wales. Now, radio broadcasts remedy that lack for those who wish to listen. Those who do not wish to listen need not do so. People who talk about the dullness of parliamentary broadcasts should always remember that any listener can turn the knob of the radio. That is one of the great attractions of broadcasting - a listener can extinguish a speaker whom he does not like. If he finds the speaker irritating, all he has to do is to turn the dial of his radio receiver and be regaled with some pleasant music or some other programme. Sometimes amusing results follow from turning to another station. I recall an incident when I heard an emphatic assertion made by someone in Parliament, and when I tuned to another station the announcer at that moment said, " This station will tell you another fairy story next week ". One of the men who developed radio in New South Wales, the late Theo Matthews, said to me, when broadcasting was first introduced, " I find it boring, but it is very valuable that Parliament should be on tap ". Any citizen can find out what kind of representative he has. Let there be no mistake, it is not always the showman, who has been attacked in this debate, the man who sets out to convince the people that he is the important fellow, who wins the people's favour. Very often, a quiet remark is a thing that sticks in the listeners memory. I can say that from my own experience. When broadcasting was introduced I took to listening to Parliament whenever I could. 1 soon got to know all the speakers, everybody who spoke often and every prominent man in both Houses, and I knew what to expect. If a man got boring, I simply noted the time and made a rough calculation as to when he would finish, switched off the radio and switched it on again when he was finished. I sometimes listened to boring and disagreeable matter, as a mortification to the flesh maybe, but also because I wanted to know what people were doing. That brings me to the very important point that has been raised as to whether we could edit parliamentary broadcasts, as to whether we could give some, but not all, of the proceedings. I can find no just way of doing this. I know it would be much more agreeable to broadcast only the high-lights of debates and cut out the tedious speakers. But we must not forget that often it is the tedious speaker who brings out some important truth that a more brilliant speaker may be seeking to hide. And do not forget, either, that one often gets a great surge of thought coming suddenly from a man from whom one did not expect to get it. I can say that there were very few of the people I listened to when I was not in Parliament who did not at some time say something that was worth saying. As for those who did not, well, at least I was able to form my opinion of them. I was able to say, " These are not the sort of people we want in Parliament ". Another argument that has been used is that when we are not on the air we can speak at considerably greater length, whereas when we are on the air we are tied by a gentleman's agreement to condense our speeches. I cannot find anything more salutary. The most valuable exercise I ever had in my life in expressing myself was when I had to write fourminute commentaries for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Into four minutes I had to compress something of substance, something that was not just a mere idle remark. Those four-minute commentaries often took much more time to prepare than a long lecture would. It is one of the most valuable of all exercises to compel one to make his thoughts succinct and to get rid of all irrelevant, extraneous and illustrative matter. 107 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - Why not make those conditions apply always? 108 KT8 LP 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator McCALLUM - That is a different question. If we could alter the rules of this chamber we could make half an hour the maximum length of an ordinary speech; but I shall not go into that. I merely say that the necessity to condense one's remarks within half an hour is not an evil, and, therefore, broadcasting cannot be condemned on that account. Senator Mattner put forward one or two arguments with which I find I cannot agree. For instance, he said that all those who had spoken before him had admitted that broadcasting was unreal. I do not admit that. I think that speeches such as we have heard to-day are much the same as they would be if they were not being broadcast. I think that this question has been debated as a question, without any particular attempt to impress people who may be listening in. I am sure that citizens who are listening to us get a far better impression if they know we are debating a matter and addressing the Chair and our fellow senators and not the public. As to divisions, that is perhaps a rather difficult matter; but it is not very often in parliamentary life, certainly not in this chamber, that there is division after division. Those are things that arise only when some considerable degree of party feeling arises, when one party believes that the other party has done something against which it must protest. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has quite frequently taken a test division and has said, "We will let that stand; that will be the test without other divisions to follow. We know we can take a division on everything but as all the senators are here we will let the matter stand at that." I think that might well become more general. 108 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Anderson - More divisions take place in another place. 108 KT8 0 0 MCCALLUM, John Senator McCALLUM - I know there are more divisions in another place. If the citizen is to know how Parliament acts, even listening to divisions is part of his education. After all, it is well he should know that Parliament is not all beer and skittles, that a good deal of it is drudgery and that members are here to do their duty according to how they see it; and that is what a person does when he sits in a division. I deplore the fact that some of the better programmes are put off by the Australian Broadcasting. Commission when parliamentary broadcasts come on. That is something we should try to remedy if we can. As the country becomes more populous and as we have more stations and more programmes, that could be remedied; but it is idle to say that because some people want to listen to an opera, or an oratorio, therefore one should not have the opportunity to listen to a debate in Parliament. The two things cannot be compared. It is no good saying that one is better than the other because they are in totally different categories. Music is one of the most sublime things in the world, and it is good that our citizens should have the. opportunity to listen to the greatest of the arts. However, the legislators are also important and it is of the utmost importance that the citizens should know what sort of people they are. What would it profit the music lover if democracy were swept away and if our free Government went and we got some dictator who said, " You must not listen to that particular opera; you must not listen to that kind of music ". I am reminded of the lunatic who was walking down the streets of Sydney and suddenly asked, " Is this Pitt-street or Thursday? " He was comparing two totally different things that were not comparable. A debate, whether it be great or ordinary, cannot be compared with great music, literature or art. Sometimes, however, debates have given rise to great literature. I do not know whether anything of thai kind has arisen as a result of the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, but certainly some of the mighty debates in the past have given rise to great literature. I ask honorable senators to reject this motion. I have listened with the pro.foundest respect to the arguments put forward in favour of it. 1 know that the motive behind it is a good one, but I do not think a case has been made out. It is not true that broadcasting has brought all these evils upon us and I conclude by saying that broadcasting has brought us some positive benefits. Among those positive benefits is the fact that any citizen can listen to parliamentary debates, whether he owns a wireless or merely has to borrow it, and he can get to know the character and ability of the members. Furthermore, he can follow in a fairly full way the matters which come before Parliament, and the types of arguments that are used. Finally, Parliament is brought, in a way, into closer touch with the people than ever before. 1 have followed the politics of this country and of other countries ever since my childhood and have always felt that I knew something about leading public figures. When I came to this chamber, although there were few of the senators 1 had met before, none of them were strangers to me. I had formed an opinion of their character and ability, which time has modified slightly, but has not greatly changed. Therefore, I say that this instrument of broadcasting can be made one of the greatest safeguards of democracy, and I ask this chamber not to sanction its abolition. 109 K0N New South Wales 0 0 ARNOLD, James Senator ARNOLD . - I consider that the introduction of this subject has given us an opportunity to review an innovation in the Australian Parliament that has now had a reasonable period of trial and ought to be subjected to our scrutiny. I have had the honour to be a Senate representative on the committee controlling the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings since the inception of the experiment. I believe that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is probably the greatest aid to the democratic system that has been introduced in any of the parliaments of the world. I do not agree with the contention that, because some older countries have not seen the wisdom of enabling the people to learn what happens in their parliament through the medium of radio, we should abandon the experiment. Rather do I feel that we have given a lead to other countries, and I look forward confidently to those other countries gradually falling into line by broadcasting the proceedings in the respective parliaments to their people. I have been very interested to learn of the reactions of honorable senators to parliamentary broadcasts. I should have liked to hear more about the general principle of the broadcasting of parliamentary desome of the minor defects that are obvious in the broadcast of the proceedings. It is perfectly true that, since the introduction of having our debates broadcast than about bates, we have become more conscious of the microphone and that, to a degree, broadcasting has modified the proceedings of the Parliament. To a degree, also, it has dictated the way in which certain debates are conducted, and has exercised a very great influence on our proceedings. To use current colloquialism, " So what? " What does it matter? Were we presenting the Parliament to the people in the best way before broadcasting was introduced? Were there no defects in those days in the manner in which we conducted our proceedings? Have not the consequential changes been of benefit both to the Parliament and to the people of Australia? It is true that the introduction of the microphone has brought about certain changes in our proceedings, but I believe that they have been for the betterment both of the Parliament and of the people who listen to parliamentary broadcasts. I am not impressed in any way by the argument that we have become slaves to the microphone. I do not believe that to be true; but I do agree that broadcasting has modified our proceedings, without introducing any serious impediment to the carrying on of the business of this Parliament. Senator Mattner said that the form of questions has changed since the introduction of the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings. I contest that assertion. My mind goes back to the days before broadcasting. The questions that were asked in those days were very similar to- those that are asked now when we are on the air. They contained a good deal of party political matter and were not asked in order to assist the Government. In many instances, their purpose was to score a point, if possible, as well as to obtain information. I do not think that the form of questions has altered very much since those days except, perhaps, that to-day questions are a little clearer than formerly because members of the Parliament devote a little more time to the framing of them. In my opinion, question time has become more interesting than it was before the advent of parliamentary broadcasting. It has been said that the Parliament is not well presented on the air, that there is too much noise and that, therefore, listeners might gain the impression that we tend to get quarrelsome and want to fight, and so on. After all, this is not a model debating society, or a place of entertainment. It is the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, and is composed of all types of men, from all walks of life, some of whom have had a very harsh upbringing, while others have been more fortunate. In presenting their views to the Parliament, by the very nature of things some members are more vigorous than others. The Parliament is a cross section of the Australian people. Gathered here are the representatives of all sections of the nation who, both in this chamber and in another place, express their opinions on how Australia ought to be managed. At times, they do so with a great deal of feeling. Always, they put to the Parliament the views of the sections of the community that they represent. They do not always express themselves academically, but usually do so vigorously. If the Australian people have conveyed to them the impression that occasionally this Parliament is a place of turmoil and great emotion, that is a very real impression. In any parliament, it must be expected that there will be clashes of opinion, due to the different environments in which the representatives of the people have received their training over the years. I come now to the reason why, some ten years ago, it was decided to broadcast the parliamentary proceedings. Older members of the Parliament will recall that, prior to the advent of parliamentary broadcasts, we were as poorly presented to the people by the press of this country as we are to-day. Not only were reports of our proceedings had, but they were very often quite inaccurate, and the members of the Parliament had no redress. I recall getting very hot on one or two occasions when the press attributed to me statements quite the reverse of what I had said. I wrote to the various editors on the matter, but 1 do not know whether or not they considered it worth their while reading my letters, because I received no replies. In those circumstances, an elector might say to me, " You said so and so in the Parliament " when, in fact, I had said directly the opposite. In those days there was no way in which the members of the Parliament could have their statements here accurately presented to the Australian people. Secondly, before the introduction of the system of parliamentary broadcasts, there was a tendency for some members of the Parliament to stunt and to ask odd questions for the sole purpose of gaining added publicity through the press. Very often men who had prepared thoughtful speeches and who had contributed something of value to the Parliament found that the press made no reference whatever to what they had said. I know that many men became disheartened when they found, after having worked on speeches in order to deliver something worthwhile in Parliament, that the only record of those speeches was in " Hansard " and that the general public knew nothing about what they had said whilst, on the other hand, a member might rise in the chamber, use strong language, or take advantage of some political stunt and in that way receive headlines in the Australian press the following day. We felt that this was not conducive to getting the best that it was possible to get from the Parliament. We knew we were completely at the mercy of the Press. I can remember when this chamber was held to ridicule several times by the press. If I remember rightly, when Senator Brown was President he found it necessary to exclude the press from the Senate for a period because of the inaccurate and frivolous reports that were being published about the Senate while honorable senators had no way of obtaining any redress. After the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee furnished its report, the Government decided to conduct an experiment by putting Parliament over the air for some part of the day. We entered into discussions with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and were told by that body that it was prepared to allow a Government speaker to have ten minutes a night, and an Opposition speaker to have ten minutes a night, while one of its own commentators would have a further ten minutes to sum up the proceedings of Parliament. We felt that this was not good enough so we went further than we intended to go originally and passed legislation compelling the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast the proceedings of this Parliament. We began by broadcasting the whole of the proceedings of the Parliament. Since then, we have made many changes iri the system. For instance, as has been mentioned already, we ceased broadcasting the proceedings during the debate on the adjournment. That was done because, occasionally, it was found that members made violent attacks on people outside the Parliament, and although those attacks were broadcast through the Commonwealth the person who was attacked had no redress other than to ask the Australian press to take up his case on his behalf. Because of those happenings we decided that discussion during the adjournment should not be broadcast. - Again, we have made some changes in relation to the broadcasting of questions. We found that some Ministers had a tendency to read long statements at question-time in order to get certain matters over the air twice in the one day. We had to prohibit that practice. Over the years we have tried to present the proceedings of the Parliament to the people in the most attractive way whilst, at the same time, ensuring that both sides shall have a fair share of the broadcasting time. That is of vast importance in our democratic system of government. We have two major parties in the Parliament. We believed that they were not being given equal opportunities by the press of Australia to express their views. We believed that it is good for any democratic system that both sides of the Parliament should have equal opportunities to express their views. We believed that the Government should have full opportunity to state its reason for proposing laws and that the Opposition should have equal opportunity to state its reasons for opposing proposed measures. Under the present system, any person who cares to devote a day or two to preparing a speech will know that when he delivers it he will have an audience of Australian people who are likely to listen to what he puts forward. We know that under our present system both the Government and the Opposition sides have equal opportunities to express their views to the Australian people. It is important to know also that the general public, merely by turning a switch is able to listen to what is happening in the Australian Parliament. That must be of great aid to our democratic way of life. It must be very encouraging to all those people who believe in democracy to know that by turning a switch they are given the opportunity to listen to arguments both for and against matters under discussion in the National Parliament. They know that their democratic way of life is being protected, and I feel that by introducing the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings we have established one of the greatest means of preserving democracy in recent years. Mention has been made of the televising of the proceedings of the Parliament. Television is another innovation, lt was many years before we were prepared to introduce the broadcasting of proceedings as we know it to-day. I think that many parliamentarians thought that the broadcasting of their speeches was too intimate, that it, perhaps, would reveal too clearly the lack of capacity of some members to speak. Perhaps, many parliamentarians feel to-day that television at this stage might not be of any advantage; but it is one of the new media of communication and I believe it will have to be considered in the years to come. I believe that just as we met the challenge of radio so will we meet the challenge of television. Here, it is interesting to recall that when we began to broadcast the proceedings of Parliament, Senator Brown, who was then President of the Senate, sought to allay the fears of a number of senators. He obtained a tape recorder and recorded speeches made by those senators who were fearful about how their utterances would be received over the air. The tape recording was played back to the senators concerned, and in this way the then President was able to give tremendous help to honorable senators by giving them some idea of what their speeches would sound like over the air. Just as Senator Brown made a challenge on that occasion, so also I am sure that if we were determined to enter television, Mr. President, you would ensure that honorable senators were properly schooled before they appeared on that medium. I am grateful to Senator Marriott for introducing a debate on this matter. The effectiveness of radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament has been discussed. Some assessments have been made of the numbers of listeners. Public opinion polls have shown that more than 50 per cent, want the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings to be continued, but other surveys have suggested that only two or three per cent, of the people listen to those broadcasts. I suspect those figures, and I believe that they might have been obtained in the big cities. As I have moved around the country, I have found that the people are so well informed on the proceedings of Parliament that there must be a large radio audience listening fairly closely to the parliamentary debates. That is true, iri particular, of the country areas where it is difficult to get up-to-date news, and the broadcasts from the Parliament must be very welcome to those people. I believe that this form of communication has proved a huge success after ten years of experimentation. It has now become part of the Australian way of life, and it is inseparable from the proceedings of the Parliament. The people of Australia are better informed than they were in the past. I believe that if we want to preserve democracy and our way of life we should retain the interest of the people in our democratic form of government. To do that, we must use the most effective medium of communication so that we shall keep our parliamentary debates before the people. Therefore, I ask honorable senators to reject the motion that has been moved by Senator Marriott. 112 KH5 Victoria 0 0 GORTON, John Senator GORTON .- First, I should like to congratulate Senator Marriott on bringing forward this motion. I. do not say that because I believe there is any merit in his proposal, or because of the content of the motion as such, but because Senator Marriott has taken advantage of the forms of the Senate to submit something in which he believes personally. He has endeavoured to get the Parliament to alter an existing state of affairs through the proper forms of Parliament that are open to a private member. I believe that more use should be made of the forms of this House. Far more time should be given to presenting and considering private members' bills and motions. That is the first ground upon which I should like to congratulate Senator Marriott. I congratulate him also because he has managed to present the Senate with a matter that has had a result which is almost unique in my experience of the Senate proceedings. This proposal has evoked more unanimity than any that I have heard discussed previously in this chamber, including proposals which one would have expected to be received without a dissentient voice. So far as I know, every honorable senator, with the exception of Senator Marriott, is against the proposal he has presented. At any rate, there is a great body of opinion against it, and I congratulate Senator Marriott on having submitted the basis for such sweet reasonableness and agreeableness between both sides of the chamber. I believe, however, that it would be a tragedy if we agreed to the proposal he has put forward. Every parliament should have the widest potential publicity that is available to it in the country where it operates. One of the first steps that is taken by any person who wishes to suppress parliamentary government, or to mislead the people about the doings and sayings of their representatives, is to prevent full and free publicity. While there is, in both Houses of the Parliament, a medium which gives to all the people who are interested full access to parliamentary proceedings, it will be extremely difficult for any attempt to overthrow parliamentary government to succeed. I am not sure that in the years to come such an attempt will not be made in Australia. The radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the Parliament is an insurance - an insurance policy, if I might describe it as such - guaranteeing the survival of parliamentary government in Australia. In this case, as with all insurance policies, a premium has to be paid. I admit that the premium payments include the necessity to listen, on many occasions, to dull and repetitious speeches, such as the one I am now delivering, instead of listening to a commercial broadcasting station, but that is a premium that the public should pay. If they pay for it, they will be repaid over and over again by the preservation of the firmest and widest foundation of their freedom. We have seen in Australia attempts, and beginnings of attempts, to place media of propaganda and the dissemination of information into fewer and fewer hands. At one stage in this chamber, note was taken of an attempt to amalgamate a large network of radio stations under the control of overseas capital. We have seen successful attempts to amalgamate newspapers. There is strong reason to believe that the overseas capital to which I have referred is endeavouring to start a chain of newspapers in Australia. li already controls one large Melbourne daily newspaper, the "Argus", and it is believed in financial circles that the same interests are endeavouring to buy another large Melbourne daily newspaper, the " Age ". If those interests are successful in that attempt, and if this tendency continues, the press of Australia and the broadcasting stations are likely to fall into fewer and fewer hands under the control of capital that comes from outside Australia and from unknown sources. 113 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - We get the truth if there is a bit of competition. 113 KH5 0 0 GORTON, John Senator GORTON - I am sorry that I have been so obscure in my speech, or the interjector so dense, that it has not been made apparent that competition is daily becoming less and less, that there is more and more lack of competition and that the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings becomes more and more necessary and not less and less necessary if the public are to be assured of a full appreciation of what is going on. I know that a number of unimportant and tedious matters have to be listened to, but it is quite impossible for any senator or member of the Parliament of any party, to decide what is important and what is not important in the broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings. If the Prime Minister is to address the House of Representatives on a matter of foreign affairs, the participation of this country in defence agreements, or on economic and budget matters - all things in which a vast number of people are interested - almost every one will agree that he will have an immense listening audience throughout the country. Thousands and thousands of people listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and thousands and thousands wish to listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) when replying on the same matter. Once we endeavour to limit the broadcasting of our proceedings to matters which the man in the street might regard as important, we give to the government in power at the moment, whether it be on our side or on the other side, a power to discriminate between what it considers important and what it considers is not important - a power to say, "That is not important" whereas it might be extremely important to the Opposition and the public. Such a thing would not be right. Any power residing in any commission or body to decide what is important and what is not important in parliamentary proceedings would be far too great, and should not be given in any circumstances. The proposer of the motion at present before the Senate asked a number of questions during his speech which he thought would elicit answers favorable to his case. He asked first, " Does the microphone rule Parliament? " and put forward his contention that it does, based on the arguments that we all heard. However, his arguments did not for one moment prove that the microphone rules the Parliament. It is true that the members of the Parliament and those responsible for the business of the Parliament take note of the existence of the microphone when making speeches or preparing the order of business. They wish to have an important speech put over the air at 8 o'clock, perhaps, when the vast majority of people who listen to the Parliament will be listening. But that is not a proof that the microphone is the ruler of Parliament. One might as well say that, because a farmer uses a tractor to plough his land and does not follow the same routine as when he used a horse, the plough rules the farmer rather than the farmer rules the plough. I do not believe for one moment that the argument that the microphone rules Parliament can be sustained. 113 KSN LP 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT asked, " Does the broadcasting of Parliament lower its prestige? It is difficult to answer that question because I have not been able to discover what is the prestige of Parliament. Abour four out of seven of the people one meets seem to have very little regard for the prestige of Parliament, certainly very little for the members of Parliament and certainly none at all for the particular representative to whom they happen to be speaking. On the other hand, there seem to be numbers of other people who feel that the Parliament does do something sometimes to help them or prevent them from being victimized, and that the members of it - particularly at some special time when they are asking for some special thing - should be treated with a certain amount of deference. So, it is hard to find out what the prestige of Parliament is, and, therefore, to find out whether the use of the facilities of broadcasting does or does not lower that prestige. However, if it has been lowered by broadcasting, it is pretty obvious that it started to be lowered ten years ago and will not be lowered more by continuing a practice which has gone on for ten years. I, personally, do not think that broadcasting lowers the Parliament's prestige. In the old days when one read a newspaper report and saw " jeers and catcalls " in brackets after parts of a speech, or " blows exchanged over the Speaker's table ", that was just as liable to be detrimental to the prestige of the Parliament as is the rather dignified way in which we manage to conduct ourselves in this Senate - which is the only chamber that I should refer to in these particular terms. Therefore, I do not agree that the use of the microphone does lower the prestige of the Parliament. Senator Marriott's last question was, " Do the people want it, or don't they? " That question has been answered over and over again in this chamber, and I shall recapitulate that the gallup poll indicates that the majority of the people do want it. The gallup poll is very nearly infallible. Before the last general election it indicated that the people wanted the present Government to be returned, and look what happened! The gallup poll indicates that the people strongly favour this Government at the present time, and that is true. Therefore, the gallup poll indicating that the majority of people want the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings to continue must be taken. to be a true and favorable expression of the majority will of the people; and I am certain that my friends opposite will agree with me on that. We were told by Senator Anderson that one in six of the people listen to the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings' at some time or other. I do not know how surveys to find out information such as that are conducted, or if they count among the listeners to Parliament those people who switch the radio on, inadvertently turn to the parliamentary broadcast and then hurriedly switch it off again. If that is not part of the basis of these calculations, and if the survey applies to people who listen to our broadcasts for a quarter of an hour, or half an hour or so, then one in six is an immensely large listening audience, which any commercial firm would pay millions and millions of pounds to get for a show advertising its products. If Mr. Dyer, or Mr. Davey, were able to point to an audience of one in six of all radio listeners throughout Australia, they would be paid far more fabulous salaries than they are understood to get at the present time. Therefore, all the indications are that the majority of people want the broadcasting of our proceedings to continue, and that a large number of them listen to those broadcasts. Having said that, I agree with the mover of this motion that a vocal minority of the people definitely do not want it. However, for the reasons that I gave at the beginning of my speech, I do not believe that that vocal minority should be allowed to prevail. I do not think that they would be happy in the outcome if they were allowed to prevail, and, consequently, 1 join the vast majority of honorable senators who trust that this motion will be ignominiously defeated. 114 L8E Victoria LP Minister for Health 1 0 CAMERON, Donald Senator CAMERON .- As the Minister of the Crown who was privileged to introduce the bill to establish the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings, I was then, and am now, an enthusiastic supporter of the process. Broadcasting is an appeal to the collective mind as distinct from the individual mind. The written word is an appeal mainly to the individual mind, but broadcasting is an appeal - and a greater appeal than has ever eventuated before - to the collective mind. In my opinion, it has been much more effective and objective than any other appeal which has been made, and I judge it mainly by the adverse criticism to which I myself am sometimes subjected, and the adverse criticism to which honorable members on the Government side are subjected. That indicates that as a result of what the people have heard over the radio they are thinking for themselves independently of those who represent them. I am reminded of the ancient Greek philosopher, Epictetus, who welcomed adverse criticism to a far greater extent than he appreciated favorable comment. In effect, he said that most applause is selfapplause. That is as true now as it was then. All that we succeed in saying is what the listeners conclude from our words. Our statements may not have added anything at all to their knowledge, but when a speaker is subjected to hard-hitting, adverse criticism and is put on his defence, it is proof positive that he has said something to make people think. That has been my experience. I have grown up with the Labour movement in this country since 1890, or thereabouts, and I have had considerable experience in organizing workers and in advocating what were considered to be impossible propositions. The adverse criticism to which I was subjected - as were others also - proved to me then, as it proves to me to-day, that if one said something provocative and constructive, it made people think. That was my main purpose in visiting country districts and towns. I met all sorts of people in various occupations and branches of social activities and they often asked me my opinion on a certain matter. They would say, "What are you doing about this? " I would ask, " What do you mean? " and they would reply, " We heard about this over the air ". To-day, I received a telephone call from a critic in Sydney who is well known in the Labour movement. He said that he had listened last night to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Dr. Evatt) and of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) and others, but when he read the press report this morning he found it was nothing like what he had heard. That report was simply a condensation of what was said, written to suit the editors of the newspaper and in order to influence the public mind. That is exactly what happens since the press has become controlled by a monopoly to a far greater extent than ever before. For all practical purposes, the press is expressing a monopoly point of view. That opinion was expressed to me only this morning. Another proof of the degeneracy of the press is the comic strips which it publishes, to appeal to' the primitive minds and the infantile imagination of its readers. There is nothing forthright or constructive in the public press to-day as compared with what was published in the 1890's and the years immediately following. Consequently, broadcasting is a corrective which should be supported by everybody. It teaches people to think for themselves. The press plays down what is said, and although, as Senator McCallum suggested, a speech may be, good or bad, the final question the speaker has to ask himself is: Who is to judge? The judgment depends upon the point of view of the listeners. My experience, gained from addressing public meetings and speaking to workers on the job, is that the listeners are forming impressions. They are thinking for themselves and they want to know, as they have asked me thousands of times, " Why is this done, in the light of what is happening? " Even to-day they want to know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is in Egypt, in view of what he has said previously. This is all valuable because the people are [earning to think for themselves. We may not agree with their conclusions, but what people have to learn to-day more than anything else is to think for themselves and not be merely mental dependants or followers of those who speak in the name of authority. There are those who believe that when a British authority makes a statement he speaks ex cathedra and that the truth of his utterances is beyond question. That is entirely wrong. Before the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings was instituted, and when the proposal to do so was being debated, 1 advocated its adoption, particularly after I heard the views of representatives of New Zealand who were then in Canberra. My friend, Senator Mattner, said, among other things, that broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings had not by any means raised the level of debates. What I am about to say is only elementary psychology, but I suggest that by a process of mental projection the honorable senator is attributing to others the very trait which he himself possesses but deplores. His statement reveals what he thinks of the people with whom he is associated and he is adopting a doctrinaire attitude which is not justified. If what the honorable senator says is true, it is the fault of the members of this House and not of the people outside. If one is not interested in adding to his knowledge any more than is necessary to retain his seat as a member of parliament or as a judge of the High Court or some other official position, he must be prepared to be regarded with a considerable amount of suspicion. Sir Ian Clunies Ross, chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, when speaking at the University of Melbourne on 13th August last, stated that scientists are ill equipped - those were his own words - to understand political problems. I agree with him. That applies generally. They have specialized in particular problems, but outside those problems they are simply babes in the wood in their political thinking. That was the implication of his statement and others have said it before. It was said in 1 844 by Karl Marx. It was said in 1931, by William McDougall, the leading physiological psychologist in England, and, last but not least by a leading biologist, Dr. Alexis Carrel, in 1935 in the publication known as " Man the Unknown ". On page 40 of the second chapter he said - The science of man is the most important of all sciences and least understood. One may excell in the physical sciences, such as law. Law is based on precedent and that is why most of the lawyers go back to the medieval ages. Of course, there are the exceptions. What applies to lawyers applies to scientists, engineers, and others who excel in a technical capacity in one field, but outside that field have little knowledge. Dr. Alexis Carrel had in mind the non-specialist sciences. In other words, he had in mind the synthetic scientists, men who have a knowledge of a special branch of science and still have a working knowledge of other sciences. In my opinion social science is the science least understood in this and similar institutions. There would never be any war if people were reasonably well-educated and that applies not only in this country but generally. I should like to preface what I have to say about my own experience by referring to the advocate or protagonist of a new idea. By an idea I mean a plan for action. That is my interpretation of the word " idea ". The new idea passes through three stages, and this has been the case ever since man has been able to speak. First of all, there is uncompromising hostility because the idea is in conflict with old ideas. Then, in the light of sustained discussion, agitation and debate there is critical toleration and, subsequently, in the light of the success of the idea, there is unanimous approval. Those are the mental processes through which we go and it is due mainly to our system of education. Therefore, I welcome with open arms the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings so that one can express his ideas as he feels and people can judge for themselves without relying on the press or even on " Hansard " because, as one honorable senator said, very few people read " Hansard ". That has been my experience, too. The fact is that very few people have time to read " Hansard ". Take the waterside worker, the miner or even the entrepreneur in charge of a big business - they have to concentrate on the one thing all the time, and while a person is concentrating on one proposition he loses sight of the fact that we are living in a changing world and, therefore, cannot understand what should be done. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. 116 miscellaneous Debate resumed from 30th August (vide page 39), on motion by Senator Spooner - That the following papers be printed: - 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, 1957, The Budget 1956-57 - Papers presented by the Right Hon. Sir Arthur Fadden in connexion with the Budget of 1956-57, and National Income and Expenditure 1955-56. 116 KTN Tasmania Leader of the Opposition 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA . - The Senate now has before it the Estimates and Budget papers and is considering a formal motion that these papers be printed. As every member of this chamber knows, this is a device merely to enable early debate on the budget proposals to take place in this chamber. We cannot, of course, deal with the budget itself until it comes to us in the form of appropriation bills' from the House of Representatives. We received the papers now before us on Thursday last, and I can indicate to the Senate that to peruse their 500 pages in the few days that have intervened since then has been a considerable task. When I point out that budgets are mostly composed of figures and statistics, one can realize the magnitude of the task of trying to survey, in the course of a few days, the whole ambit of Commonwealth activity. I say at once that there is not one word in the dictionary that I know of that is strong enough to condemn this budget, lt has been described variously as sterile, heartless, barren and hopeless. It follows the same old futile policies that the Government has announced in the last six or seven years and, of course, it is open to exactly the same criticisms that the Opposition has levelled against those policies consistently and honestly over the whole period. One newspaper I noted, very brightly, if somewhat inadequately, described this budget as the budget that does not budge. That is not a bad description of it, because it is the most static thing that the Opposition has ever cast eyes upon. We of the Opposition regard this budget so seriously that we propose to treat it with more than usual formality. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I move - That all words after "That" be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof, " the estimates and Budget Papers 1956-57 tabled in the Senate are unacceptable and should be rejected because they seek to implement policies which arc seriously detrimental in their effect on the interests of Australia, and for which the Government deserves to be censured '". You, Mr. President, might recognize this as a somewhat unusual course to follow on a motion of this type, but the Opposition feels that it is time to direct very pointed attention to the policies that are being pursued. Right at the outset, I want to comment upon a usual feature of the introduction of budgets by this Government. There has been on this occasion, as on others, a disgraceful leakage of the contents of the budget in the press. Information on some items was known weeks before, and on others some days before even the confidential pre-release of the budget to the newspapers to enable them to set it up. So, the blame for these leakages on this occasion cannot be laid at the door of the press of the country, and the Government and its supporters must accept responsibility for what has happened. Long before the budget was tabled, we read in the press that there would be no reductions in the rates -of taxation, no increases in pension rates, and that there would be increased postal -charges. Those things were asserted, not by way of speculation, but dogmatically, and the Government must accept full responsibility for the disclosures however they occurred. There was an extraordinary advertisement in the Sydney press in the very first edition on the morning following the introduction of the budget. A very well known insurance company proclaimed that, in view of the proposed concession in relation to insurance premiums, insurance policies would be a more attractive form of investment than formerly. Although the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) had not announced this proposed concession until about 9 o'clock on the previous night, this quarter-page advertisement, headed in bold type, appeared in a Sydney newspaper - The Government's decision to increase the personal tax. allowance for Life Assurance premiums to £300 per annum, designed to encourage savings and to combat inflation, enables you to take advantage of the most competitive premium rates offered. Where did that knowledge come from? 117 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - That information was given publicly before the budget was brought down. 117 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I suggest that it was obtained long before 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock of last Thursday night, for an advertisement of that type and character to appear in the press on the following morning. It is very clear proof of the fact that there was prior knowledge of the contents of this budget. Now, at the outset, as this is an appropriate opportunity to follow this course, let me briefly recite the state of the nation today, after seven years of government by the present occupants of the treasury bench. We find a thoroughly confused Federal Government, presiding amidst a litter of broken promises over a thoroughly confused economy, which is highlighted by the aspects that I shall enumerate. I invite Government senators, if they think that any one of them is wrong, to tell me so as I proceed. They are inflation, vicious taxation, credit restrictions, import restrictions, loss of overseas sterling balances, high interest rates, a weak loan market, contracting export markets, chaos in industrial wage fixation, an embarrassing immigration problem, growing unemployment, shortage of hard currencies, restrictions of foreign exchange, lag in recruitment for the defence forces, and defence forces unready for mobilization. What a record! What a state of the nation; and nobody on the Government side is able to question any one of those elements or facets of the situation. 118 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - I rise to a point of order. I submit that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are grossly out of order, inasmuch as it is an offence against the Standing Orders to interject while a senator is speaking. Senator McKenna should not, therefore, imply that the lack of interjections means acquiescence in his arguments. 118 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! The point of order is not upheld. 118 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - It is quite a refreshing change for me to hear no interjections. I have found Government supporters exceedingly vocal when they have disagreed with me, whether with reason or without it, and it is a most unusual and refreshing experience to find none of my submissions queried. That is the state of the nation that this Government, with Goebbels-like audacity, calls prosperity. That is the extraordinary part of it. 1 hope to deal in some detail with these individual matters as I proceed. At the present stage, I want to comment generally on this sorry spectacle. What an abject confession or failure on the part of a government which began seven years ago with a balanced economy, a balanced budget, a low cost structure, high overseas reserves, and has had the advantage of seven most bountiful seasons throughout the whole of its term! What a record! I put it that failure is not the worst sin. Failure due to incompetence and laziness can be forgiven. I think J. R. Lowell, the poet, expressed perfectly in one line what I wish to convey to the Senate when he said - Not failure but low aim is crime. I accuse the Government of low aim throughout the whole of its administration. I take that line as my theme in my opening attack on this budget; it is not failure, but low aim that is the crime. Reviewing the priorities that this Government has established for itself, I say its first priority was to keep itself in office at all costs, even at the cost of its self-respect and its honour. That.I suggest, is a low aim. I refer first of all under that heading to the spate of promises that this Government made to the people and which it broke one after the other, shamelessly andcompletely.It promised to reduce living costs. That was cruel treatment to the pensioners. It promised to reduce living costs rather than increase the amount of payment made to pensioners. It promised to put purchasing value back into the £1. It promised the people of Australia that it would reduce taxation, that it would abolish all restrictive controls by 1952 and that it would abolish the means test. We have heard nothing of that since. It solemnly promised the people of Australia in 1952 that it would impose an excess profits tax. That promise was solemnly made by the Prime Minister in 1950, yet not one thing has been done from that day until now through this period of six years, and that has been the basic cause of inflation, the basic cause of the disbalance and upset in our economy. My second count against the Government is that it has played politics with the nation's affairs to serve the same low aim of retention of office. I remind the Senate that in the year of the horror budget - 1951-52 - there was imposed upon the people of Australia an extraordinary gloom of taxation to the tune of £209,000.000 in the one year. Then, in 1953, there were remissions of that taxation. Examining the juxtaposition of the remissions and the following Senate election, the reason for the remissions appears very clear. The Government was using the most flexible instrument of economic policy - taxation - simply to play politics on the eve of an election. In 1954, we saw the phenomenon repeated when, with a House of Representatives election looming, there were more remissions of taxation. Playing upon this same instrument, the Government repeated the phenomenon in another way in 1955, again on the eve of an election. On that occasion, the Government brought out the House of Representatives from this Parliament almost two years ahead of its time, a most extraordinary proceeding explainable only by one reason, namely, that the Government knew it was faced with financial difficulty. It knew that in the immediate future, despite the budget introduced only a few months before, it was about to reimpose enormous taxation - and this without one reference to the people, without one word of warning. This time, without one word to the people, it brought the House of Representatives out and it won an election. What a pity it was that the soothsayer from "Julius Caesar " was not about at the time to say, " Beware the ides of March ". It was on the ides of March, on 15th March, just three months after this Government was elected, that there came that awful mulct upon the people of Australia to the tune of £115,500,000 a year, when this Government struck at the very people who elected it, not at big business so much but at the individual. It struck at all the things that form part of the individual's .daily life. It struck at his liquor, his tobacco and his petrol, lt certainly imposed disabilities upon car manufacturers and the vendors of cars, but it did increase interest rates for banks. This gave the banks increased profits. Do not let anybody in the Senate imagine that interest rates were not directed at the individual, because the business concerns which take advantage of credit facilities invariably deduct those interest commitments as an allowable deduction for taxation; and, secondly, pass them on in increased costs to the community. Whether it be increases in the costs of goods or services, it is the individual in the Australian community who finally pays that increased charge. That was one more burden that was passed on to the individual. Then there was the extraordinary clash of opinion between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country at the time when that supplementary budget was brought in on the ides of March. The Prime Minister indicated that it was an anti-inflationary measure. Nobody in this community could accept that statement because, on the face of it, how do you keep costs down by adding to them? As everybody knows, customs duty, excise duty and sates tax, being passed into the manufacture of goods, are passed on by each wholesaler, with each wholesaler's margin of profit on top of it. To-day, we are faced with a sales tax of £130,000,000, and a pay-roll tax of £48,000,000 a year, both those items unquestionably projecting into the cost structure of this country at the very least another £300,000,000. Accordingly, the Prime Minister's statement simply could not be accepted, not even by the man in the street who does not claim to know anything about economics. The Treasurer put the position quite clearly, following the Prime Minister, when he said the money was wanted to help support State works programmes because of the expected failure of the loan market, and, secondly, because loans to the tune of about £200,000,003 were falling due for conversion during the current financial year and it was expected that they would not be completely converted and that the unconverted part would have to be met in cash and for that reason large funds would be required. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate why the people were not told that in the preceding December. Why was not that fact put before them? There was deceit, deception and political trickery about that election and I use that as one of the counts upon which I level the charge that the Government was more concerned about keeping itself in office than about attending to the good of this country. Now, let me go back to 1954 for a moment and deal with import cuts. The Senate will remember that on 27th September, 1955, following the budget, the Prime Minister made a dramatic statement in the House of Representatives. On that occasion he said - In April, 1954, a large group of items was put on a " no quota restriction " basis, which meant that licences were given for any amount so long as it could be shown that goods were genuinely on order and available. The results were so dramatic that in last October it became necessary to discontinue the no quota restriction system, which had proved a major factor- Mark those words - which had proved a major factor in import pressure, and put the good,", back on a quota basis. Again, we have that. March madness that has characterized this Government throughout its term. In March it had decided that as from 1st April the lid was taken off for imports. Of course, there was a House of Representatives election coming up shortly. Could that have been merely by strange coincidence? The importers of this country were given a complete licence to import what they liked, and they took advantage of it. The Prime Minister himself had to admit only last year that the results were so dramatic that the Government had to come right back and close down on imports again. But the important point is that the damage was done. That year, we went back to the tune of £256,000,000 in our current account on overseas trade. With capital inflow and loans bolstering the position temporarily, we finally lost £142,000,000 on our cash reserves, abroad. That happened while the Government played politics. That was a wretched thing for a government to do. It is one of the reasons why the Opposition was impelled to move a vote of censure. I direct attention to another matter in which the Government played politics. In 1954, while it was engaged in this political trickery, and again just before the federal elections of that year, we witnessed the most shameless political stunting over the abortive royal commission that was stimulated by Petrov. His disclosures were not kept within the knowledge of the security service, which could have used them for the purpose of national security, and what was the result? This Government used that royal commission in the most shameless way as a platform for character assassination of its political opponents. What did that cost Australia? The previous year, our trade with Russia was valued at £27,000,000. The upshot of the Petrov commission was that we severed diplomatic relations with Russia and, in the following year, our exports to that country fell to £153,000. Our trade with Russia dropped from £27,000,000 in 1954 to £153,000 in the next year, and in the year just closed our trade with Russia was valued at £20. What were our exports last year? They were merely a few gifts. We sacrificed £27,000,000 a year to enable this Government to play politics, and that at a time when the balance of overseas payments is one of the most crucial problems facing us. I have driven home the first priority. The second priority of this Government was to build a trade monopoly, and" to serve the interests of powerful business organizations before all else. I suggest that that, too, was a low aim, having regard to other things that the Government should have done. The first matter under this heading was the increase of bank interest rates to a maximum of 6 per cent. That was intended to curb the demand for credit. It is a most absurd proposition for this Government to advance when money is being sought at 15 per cent, and 16 per cent, for purposes to which I shall refer later. While people are paying up to 20 per cent. for money, this Government pretends that an increase of interest rates to 6 per cent, will stem the demand. I remind honorable: senators that this Government sold out itsinterests in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited on the eve of the advent of television in Australia. 120 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator Scott - How long ago? 120 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - In the past few years. I am reviewing the history of thisGovernment during its seven years in office. One has to go back a few years to see the pattern of its behaviour emerge clearly, and. that is why I am referring to these matters. The aim was low even then. At the time, we did not know how low it was, but eventshave exposed its objectives. On the very eve of the advent of television, the Government walked out of the field where it might have conditioned the prices for television sets and equipment, and handed the whole field over to private enterprise asa complete monopoly. The Government would not even remain in the field as a. conditioning factor. What happened only recently when plans for. television were near fruition? The Government handed four television stations to the dominating control of four newspapers: organizations that already control communications through the press and radiothroughout Australia, and are now to be given control of the newest and most powerful means of mass communication. The Government has served the interests that I have specified. What did the' Government do quiterecently? Senator Scott will remember that only in the past few months, the Parliament handed over to private shipping interests of Australia what is, in effect, an absolutemonopoly of all expansion of trade on the coast of Australia for twenty yearsunder an agreement that was signed by this Government. In the process, the Government said to the Commonwealth shipping line: " These are your confines. Stay within them. You cannot even book your own cargo or make your own stevedoring., arrangements ". The Government has given a monopoly to the private shipping, companies of Australia after it failed tosell the Commonwealth shipping line. 120 K0W 0 0 ASHLEY, William Senator Ashley - It did not have the-, courage to sell it. 121 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - The Government could not sell it. The ship-owners were too hungry. They were not even prepared to pay bargain prices; otherwise, the Commonwealth shipping line would have gone to them. The pattern continues. Only recently, the Government handed over the undertaking of the Australian Whaling Commission in Western Australia to the commission's competitors in business without calling public tenders, without disclosing to this Senate the valuations involved in the transaction, and on terms which the purchaser could meet out of profits alone. Those profits are now at the rate of £200,000 a year. The Government also sold the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. That organization was the one listening post this nation had in the vital field of oil. Again, the Government turned down opportunities to go further into that field which is so vital to the nation, and removed the last conditioning factor that it might have had in that field. Practically every gallon of oil we use comes from overseas. It is as vital to this country as air. Ships cannot sail, aeroplanes cannot fly and road transport cannot move without oil, but this Government walked out of a field that is vital to our security and the national economy. Let us consider what was done by this Government in the field of aviation as between Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines. This Government with its own aviation instrumentality, went out of its way to build up its competitor, handing it mails and giving it finance. I claim that I have justified the second count against this Government. Let me turn my attention now to the third and last priority of this Government. I refer to the ordinary average Australian - the pensioners, those on fixed incomes, the mass ot the workers and their families. They are the people who have been put last by this Government in its assessment of values. Those people are Australians. There would be no Australia without them. 121 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - They are the people who elected this Government to office. 121 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - They are the people who have been deceived by this Government. They are Australians, and the first duty of the Government is to serve their interests and not the interests of big business. The Government has taken advantage of the indifference of the ordinary Australian, his ignorance of economic affairs and his forgetfulness. It relied upon that a great deal. Let us consider how the Government has treated the ordinary Australian. Taxation now runs to the tune of £1,095,000,000 a year. Of that amount, £401,000,000 is obtained by direct income tax charges and £422,000,000 is concealed in indirect taxes. The Chifley Government raised £504,000,000 by taxation in its last year of office. Perhaps some honorable senator will ask what was the relation between taxation and the national income. I may be asked whether it is not a fact that the national income has risen. I say of course it did; but let honorable senators on the Government side work the figures out and ascertain what percentage of the national income this Government is taking in taxation, and what percentage the Chifley Government took in its last year of office. They will be amazed if they do that. 121 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'sullivan - Perhaps, Senator McKenna would be amazed if he worked them out. 121 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I have worked them out. 121 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'sullivan - Then, perhaps, the honorable senator will quote them. 121 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I shall not hesitate to quote them. This year, taxes based upon the national income for last year - because we have not this year's figures available - will be 25.5 per cent, of the national income. Taxation for the preceding year was 23.1 per cent. In 1949, during the Chifley regime, the taxation worked out at 22 per cent, of the national income. 121 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'sullivan - On what figures? 121 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I have worked out the figures, and the Minister will have an opportunity to check those figures. The next point is that the burden of the supplementary budget through the charges on liquor, tobacco, and petrol, and other charges, has fallen directly upon the ordinary average Australian. High interest rates make their impact upon him in everything that he buys or uses, and I do not forget that it was this Government which, in handing out medical benefits and giving additional hospital benefits, said to the people of Australia, " None of these things are for you unless you are properly insured "; and such insurance costs the family man about £15 a year which he can properly regard as additional taxation imposed on him to attract benefits from this Government for which he has already paid in taxes. Now, let us consider what this budget does for the little man. Television is about to be introduced into Australia. The people have waited for television for six long years under this Government, but when it commences does the Government facilitate their acquisition of television sets? No, it does not, because in this budget it puts a duty of £7 on each cathode tube required in television sets. These tubes have to be replaced regularly, but the Government is putting difficulties in the way of the ordinary person who might be looking forward to getting a television set as cheaply as possible. Let honorable senators consider postal charges. The ordinary Australian, perhaps, writes only a few letters a year, and sends a rare telegram on an important anniversary. Maybe he thinks that these increased charges will not affect him. But the great bulk of the charges are paid by businesses, and the increased charges enter into the costs of those businesses and are passed on to the consumer as extra charges for goods and services. The Australian people should understand that the £5,000,000, or more, of additional postal charges will come directly out of his pocket. Consider the Government's action in increasing the allowable deduction in respect of education expenses of children from £75 a year to £100 a year for each child. How magnificent that is for the few who will benefit from it! How many of the people of Australia will actually benefit? It is all too clear that the benefit to the people this year will be about £20,000, and approximately £500,000 in a full year. Similar arguments may be applied to the increased deduction allowed in respect of insurance premium. To the present time a deduction of £200 has been allowed, and that has been increased to £300. I ask any honorable senator on the Government side to tell me how many of the wage and salary earners of Australia were in a position to spend £4 a week on insurance premiums, and how many are now in a position to spend £6 a week on them. An ordinary worker on an income of about £14 a week, with a young family, cannot even live at a decent standard if he does not get overtime. 122 K5X 0 0 SHEEHAN, James Senator Sheehan - Even then his wife would have to go out to work. 122 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Yes, as Senator Sheehan has said, in many cases the wives of such men have to go out to work. The word-spinning of this Government has evolved a number of new words which cannot be found in the dictionary. They are all - designed to bemuse an ordinary Australian. Unemployment is now " disemployment "; depression is not depression any longer, it is " recession "; and this situation of economic chaos, in which this Government reigns, is called " prosperity ". Now, how lightly must the words of this Government be taken. On 19th October last year the then Minister for the Interior walked into the House of Representatives and announced that as a result of trie Government's decision to practise what it preached, as the Prime Minister had said in his economic statement, capital works expenditure was to be reduced from £104,000,000 by £10,000,000. He said that he had already applied a cut of £4,000,000. Instead of cutting off £10,000,000, or £4,000,000 as the Minister had announced in the House of Representatives, he cut off £2,000,000; and this year he has added £6,000,000 to the figure which, last year, he indicated was the proper sum to be expended on capital works. In other words, he made his statement merely to pretend that something was being done which was not even contemplated. That was mere political trickery. This Government budgeted to spend £104,000,000, and in order to practise what it preached it stated that it would reduce the sum by £4,000,000. But this year the amount has been increased to £109,000,000. Is that not a condemnation of this Government and an indication that the people can no longer take seriously anything that it says? 122 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - Has the honorable senator looked at the gallup polls lately? 122 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Yes, I have. This Government has made the ordinary average Australian pay for the whole of the capital works of the Commonwealth, and most of the capital works of the States, out of his own private pocket. I wonder how many Australians realize that in the seven years that this Government has ruled, the public has had to pay almost £120,000,000 for capital works. They have to pay £ 100,000,000 for Federal works and about £450,000,000 for State works this year. If the loan market had not been disrupted and ruined by the Government allowing inflation to run free, if the Government had not interfered with interest rates and destroyed the confidence of investors, the money required for capital works would have been raised on the loan market and repayment of the debt spread over the taxpayers of the next 53 years, as the cost of capital works always was spread throughout the years prior to the advent of this Government. In the light of those facts, is it any wonder that I charge this Government with low aims towards the ordinary Australian. Now, I shall deal with the outstanding figures of the budget. Last year, taxation was £997,000,000, having increased by £97,000,000. The overall revenue has increased by £99,000,000 and the expenditure by £52,000,000 for the year. Does the Government practise what it preaches in those circumstances? There is to be an overall surplus of £109,000,000, and I have indicated that that will be applied to bolster States works programmes and take care of the deficiency in loan conversions. I ask members of the Government how they think ordinary civilian and war pensioners are likely to regard the fact that although the Government expects to collect this year £1,230,000,000 in revenue and to have a surplus of £109,000,000, nothing is done for them? I ask how they expect the pensioners to react to Sir Frederick Shedden's statement that, tucked away in 21 defence trust accounts at 1st July, 1955, was £98,000,000 while the Government cannot find £1,000,000 to increase civil or military pensions. How does the ordinary Australian regard the fact that there is supposed to be £193,000,000 to the credit of the National Welfare Fund established for the very purpose of building up social services resources, when there is not even £1.000,000 provided in this budget for the pensioners of Australia? How do supporters of the Government expect the workers to regard company profits, and profits made by business organizations, while their wages have been, in most instances, stationary for almost three years? It is interesting to contrast the progress of company profits with the static condition of wages. From September, 1953, to June, 1956, wage rates in federal awards have remained stationary but in exactly the same period of three years the profits of companies rose from £378,000,000 in 1952-53 to £550,000,000 last year. That is an increase of £172,000,000 while wages remained stationary. A total of £120,000,000 was paid out in dividends, an increase from £92,000,000 in 1952-53. An amount of £213,000,000 in undistributed profits was placed in reserves. That was more than the amount paid out in dividends, and did not include secret reserves. Another £29,000,000 of undistributed profits and £187,000,000 paid in tax bring the total to £549,000,000. 123 JZY 0 0 PALTRIDGE, Shane Senator Paltridge - What about the sums paid out in capital investment? 123 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I will come to capital later. I am dealing now with certain company profits, but there are many more profits to be mentioned. 123 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator Hannaford - What does the honorable senator mean by secret reserves? 123 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I will educate the honorable senator later if he wishes. I may mention, however, that one source of secret reserves is the under-statement of stocks and another is the writing off of excessive amounts in depreciation. Those are two items which the honorable senator can think about while 1 tell the Senate about business profits made by the unincorporated bodies during the period when wages were pegged. Their profits rose from £414,000,000 to £520,000,000 in 1955-56. 123 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - Because there were more of them. 123 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - That was an increase of £106,000,000. 123 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - It the honorable senator cited the corresponding figures for wages in an honest way he would get the same result. 123 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I would get nothing of the kind. These figures disclose the payment of record dividends, and show that record sums were placed in reserves. When the increased profit of £106,000,000 made by unincorporated bodies is added to the profit increase of other companies the total increase over that three-year period is shown to be £278,000,000, but during that whole time the salaries of workers under federal awards were stationary. 124 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - It is no wonder that the people take no notice of the honorable senator's party when he talks such nonsense. 124 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - When the honorable senator has time to think he might consider what is the average wage paid in Australia to-day, and he will then receive a surprise. 1 now wish to discuss overseas balances, and I point out that during the seven years that this Government has been in office it has lost, on current account in overseas trading, £821,000,000. In one year, 1951-52, it lost £579,000,000, and in the last two years £478,000,000. There were, however, offsetting gains in two years. The Government made amends to some extent by borrowing overseas and by securing the investment of overseas capital in Australia, but both those courses are highly dangerous. They are all right on short term to improve the balance of payments and to prevent too great a crash of our London sterling balances, but they have long-term effects which could be disastrous for this country. I invite any responsible member of the Government to examine an article published by its own Bureau of Agricultural Economics in April last. lt pointed out that North American investments in Australia had grown to such an extent and the rate of profit made in this country on. those investments had expanded so vastly that, as the article points out - This rate of increase indicates that within a few years, a decision by American companies to repatriate profits as dividends instead of ploughing them back could absorb the whole of Australia's dollar income and force the imposition of even more drastic restrictions upon imports of developmental equipment for Australian rural industries and manufacturers. Even with all the bolstering of the balance of payments position, two years ago Australia lost £142,000,000 in hard cash and £73,000,000 last year. Honorable senators must remember that on all money borrowed overseas interest must be paid, and on all overseas capital invested here, dividends are payable, so that the Government has, in effect, been mortgaging the future. As pointed out in this very thoughtful article, circulated by the Government's own bureau, there is a warning for the Government about the long-term effects of its policies. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), in his budget speech, said that the underlying problem was a conflict between the desire for development - including the growth of population - on the one hand, and the efforts of the people to achieve higher standards of consumption and better living standards by the people. But he overlooked one vital element - that is, the matter of defence and security. My colleague, Senator Byrne, in a brilliant speech recently delivered, posed perfectly the dilemma into which the Communist countries have forced the democracies. He pointed out that in all countries to-day there is a conflict over the use of resources for development, defence, security, consumption and standards of living. The Communist countries trampled remorselessly upon the individual and his aspirations in favour of security and the development of their economies. When one follows the trend in this country, however, one finds the same pattern, lt is the individual here who is asked to sacrifice his standard of living and to carry the whole burden of halting inflation. It is not the profiteer who is asked to do that, however, but the worker and the pensioner. The profiteer is allowed to run free. There is this difference between the position of Australia and that of the Communist countries: Although they trampled on the individual, at least they have made some show of success about their development and their security. They have gone bull-headed for those two objectives. Australia, however, has failed in all three. Our development is lagging in regard to homes, schools, and hospitals and our roads are in a chaotic condition. Who can be proud of the present stage of Australia's development? As to defence, I remind honorable senators that the Public Accounts Committee pilloried the Department of Air over the way it had bungled its accounts and finance. Sir Frederick Shedden, the secretary of the Department of Defence, stated to the Public Accounts Committee, " We are not ready for mobilization; we were not in 1953 ". Sir Lawrence Wackett, the chairman of the Aircraft Corporation, put the position plainly in one of yesterday's newspapers. He indicated, although he did not use these words, that although a mission from this Government had been abroad for eighteen months to determine what new types of aircraft would be put on the assembly line, the corporation is still without a decision' as to what is to replace the type now going out of production; and even if that advice were available now, the corporation would not be ready, when the last Sabre comes off the line, to put the new one on. In other words, we are utterly unprepared and have failed in our defences - bungling and lagging. 125 K5X 0 0 SHEEHAN, James Senator Sheehan - Except in spending money. 125 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - We are spending large sums to make the Australian public think that something is being done whereas nothing tangible is being done. Sir Frederick Shedden, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, exposed the fact that £98,000,000 is tucked away in trust funds for defence purposes. But there is nothing for the pensioners! I have mentioned these things to the Government year after year. I have directed attention to the strategic stores and equipment account, which year after year has contained the amount of £48,000,000, to the Korea operations fund which contains £10,000,000 and to the defence equipment and supply account ' in which there is a balance of £20,000,000. Those were the balances in those funds at 30th June last and they have been added to by many more items. I say to the Government that its policy of laisser faire - leave things alone and they will sort themselves out - would be adopted only by an individual who would say that the whole miracle of the universe had evolved from inanimate and unintelligible matter. It just will not happen that way. Nothing will cure inflation and right the economy unless the Government will grasp the nettle and take the proper steps to do so. There must be federal prices control of interest rates. Men seeking war service homes have to wait for their finance but have projects immediately before them for which they are paying 15 per cent. to 20 per cent, interest for financial accommodation to tide them over until they can obtain approval of their loans. 125 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - How many of them? 125 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - The sharks are there, and they are not halted by this Government. 125 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - How many of them? 125 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I do not know, but I know that ex-servicemen have been asked to pay that interest rate; and they are paying it. 125 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - Produce them. 125 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - I could produce the estate agents who told me about it; and I will refer the honorable senator to one very large insurance company in Sydney which can produce to him notices of second mortgages at 20 per cent, interest. That is the kind of black market this Government is encouraging. It is the worst kind of black market - in money - the very life-blood of trade, commerce and industry. There might have been black markets when controls were running out under a Labour government, but at least they were illegal. We had running on indictment fines up to £5,000 and gaol for five years; but what has this Government done? It has a black market in import licences - a disgrace in recent years; and there is the worst and most pernicious type of black market in money which is actually fostered and sponsored by this Government. Unquestionably, a situation as difficult as we have in Australia to-day will not sort itself out. Unless something positive is done, it will drift and drift. The Labour party believes in facing a positive position with positive action. After all is said and done, we have proved that it is effective. While Labour was in office for eight years we had controls and although there were the most terrific inflationary pressures throughout that time due to war expenditure and due to many people not having access to the things they wanted day by day, homes and the rest, we were able to hold costs down during the whole of those eight years. During that time, the cost of living rose only £1 16s. in eight years: but during the six and a half years of this Government's office the cost of living alone - I am not including the £1 that was added to the basic wage in December. 1950 - has risen by £5 lis. What an inglorious record! That is under Liberal-Country party rule. Let me indicate how the cost of living rose and how the Government did nothing to halt it. In 1950 it rose by 13s., in 1951 by 38s., in 1952 by 31s., and in 1953 by 8s. lt fell by ls. in 1954, and then rose by lis. in 1955. Now, it is off again in a glorious gallop in 1956. What an inglorious record in trying to halt inflation which the Treasurer tells us in his speech is now probably at its most difficult stage. After six years of what he termed a real struggle to halt it he has got exactly nowhere at all. I desire to say a word or two on social services. I had hoped to devote some real time to this subject. Throughout the last year the cost of living has risen at the rate of 15s. a week, judged by the C series index. That, in turn, has lowered the spending power of pensioners throughout Australia. They have just come through a wet, cold winter. Eighty per cent, of them have no income other than their pension. On £4 a week many of them, unless they are living with relatives, have to find food, clothing; warmth and shelter, and I say that the plight of pensioners throughout Australia to-day is just shocking. Tens of thousands of them are cold, hungry and homeless, and many of them lonely. It is a terrific plight and this Government has been brutal in handling all this money, all this revenue and having a surplus of £109,000,000 for purposes that it may not be required to anything like the extent that is suggested, and yet is not finding even £1,000,000, let alone £20.000,000, for pensioners. I know that some honorable senators on the Government side have made representations to the Government for pension increases, but they have been overborne. I challenge the majority of honorable senators on the Government side who have upheld the budget in this respect to stand up and justify that position. With a surplus of £109,000,000, with reserves tucked away, with a revenue for the year of £1,230.000,000, not £1,000,000 is to be found for pension increases! Every member of the Government party should be ashamed at this inhuman and brutal treatment of people who have served this country well. Then there is child endowment. What has the Government done for the family? It has allowed child endowment to remain at 10s. a week since 1948, except for the addition of 5s. for the first child. That 5s. to-day would not even buy a decent sized apple a day for a child, let alone a pint of milk. This Government has seriously ignored their desperate plight. I should like to say a word about unemployment. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) cited figures on unemployment when asked for them the other day by referring to the number receiving unemployment benefit. He pointed out that in Australia on 18th August there were 10,416 persons drawing unemployment benefit. He indicated that that represented only one-third of 1 per cent, of the total work force. When that is left there, it presents a completely wrong picture of the unemployment situation in Australia, because in the bulletins issued month by month by the Department of Labour and National Service it appears that the number of people who have notified the department of the fact that they are out of work i'.nd have not been placed was 16,266 as on 1st January last and at 30th June the number was 31,517. 126 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator Scott - At what date was that? 126 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - That was at 29th June, as the honorable senator will find if he looks at the statement. I have it in my mind that, in the interim, the figure has grown to 35,000. But whether it is 31,000 or 35,000 is not relevant to my argument. I think it is a tragedy, to which every parliamentarian should address himself, if there is even one person in this country - let alone 30,000 - who is able and willing to work but cannot obtain a job. It is a serious matter not only for the individuals themselves, but also for their families. 126 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - Thirty thousand out of how many - 2,750,000? 126 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - What do statistics matter to a man who is out of work and is hungry? The Minister need not start calling out loudly. The plight of a person who is unemployed cannot be expressed adequately, or at all, in terms of statistics. [Extension of time granted.] I must discard many subjects that I should have liked to talk upon, but I thank the Senate for the opportunity to continue. I regret that 1 am not able to traverse the whole question of wage policy, including the divergence between Federal and State awards, and the recent abortive conference summoned by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Arthur Fadden) and attended by the State Premiers. I merely wish to comment that 1 think the Government must . accept its responsibility for the wage disparity and consequently for the difficulty in which it finds itself. It has added to the cost of living by reducing or cutting out food subsidies. No less than ls. 6id. per lb. on tea has gone into the C series index since the Government cut down the subsidy on this commodity. Butter and cheese have gone up for the same reason. 127 K7A 0 0 SPOONER, William Senator Spooner - Thank goodness beer still goes down! 127 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - That is a truly Treasury outlook, may I say. I pass to my concluding matter. The Treasurer, in the course of his budget speech, said - Locked away in this vast land of ours are resources capable of enlarging our export potential and diminishing our need for imports. I point out, in particular to the Minister for National Development, that if this Government has any imagination at all, it has a vast opportunity to explore and exploit these resources. Oil is the great thing. I have remarked already to-night how vital it is, and I am not going to traverse the subject again. I merely say that one would expect the Government itself to be leading the band in the search for oil, a commodity upon which the very life of this country hinges.' I say that it is the duty of this Government to comb every square mile of Australia, and not leave the oil prospecting companies to proceed at their leisure, and within their limited capacity to search in various places. I suggest that this is a matter in which the Government should give a lead. Let us have a look at how much of a lead it has given. A glance at the Estimates will show that in a year in which £1,230,000,000 is to be received, this Government will spend £129,000 on oil search surveys. This amount will be made available to the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Australia. It represents a niggardly .0001 per cent, of the estimated receipts- for the year. I am commending to the Government the thought of Sir Arthur Fadden; let it expand the thought imaginatively. Let us find oil, if there are oil deposits in Australia, because there in one stroke we will resolve our balance of payments problem- We import something like £90,000,000 worth of petrol and petroleum products annually. If we could find our own supplies in Australia we could get to the position where we could, perhaps, export petroleum products, and the whole balance of payments problem would resolve itself. There would also be a very real impact upon the cost structure in Australia. 127 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - Have we not already exported £9,000,000 worth this year? 127 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Yes, we have exported some but we had to import crude oil in order to do that. 127 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator Henty - Is research not going on? 127 KTN 0 0 MCKENNA, Nicholas Senator McKENNA - Yes, research is being conducted by private companies, but there, is not adequate research by the Government. Instead of expending a paltry £129,000 in a year on oil research, it should be expending millions of pounds. I think that there is a complete lack of leadership in this field, as well as in other aspects of government activity. I conclude by saying that all that I have said more than justifies the censure motion that I have moved against this Government. It came in as a government of promises, and to-day it is a government of excuses. It has dismally failed Australia in every sphere of finance and the economy. As I have indicated, it is a government of low aim. It is a government that is incompetent and lazy. It has failed to provide leadership for the Australian nation. I say that the Menzies-Fadden Administration is an expensive luxury that this nation can no longer afford. 127 JZI Queensland LP Attorney-General and Minister for the Navy 1 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN . - I am quite sure that those of us who have been listening here, and those who have been listening to the broadcast could be pardoned for failing to realize, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), that a budget is a statement of the finances of a country and the Government's programme for the year ahead. We have put down specific and definite problems and propositions, and we have invited the Opposition to debate them. But nothing was said by the Leader of the Opposition, in real terms, to-night about the budget. There was a lot of appeal to the ignorant and the uninformed. There was rather mean play, I think, upon the needs of those in poor and necessitous circumstances. On an occasion like this, and in the circumstances that our country faces, I think we are entitled as a government to expect from the Leader of the Opposition some constructive suggestions. In all fairness, I cannot recollect one such suggestion in the speech to which we have just listened. The whole hour, plus some minutes, was spent almost entirely, playing upon the misfortunes and the misery of those in poor circumstances, and in preying upon the ignorance of the uninformed in regard to other matters. I hoped that I would have some reasonable argument to answer, and that out of the ensuing debate would emerge something of benefit to our country and to the people whom this Parliament serves. In that hope I have been dis- -.. appointed, Senator McKenna stated that there had been leakages of budget information. He went on to say that one of the vital leakages was that there was "going to be an increase in postal charges. Is it suggested that people have been going around buying up postage stamps so that they could traffic in them? Let us consider the matter. The Leader of the Opposition said that there was a leakage of the information that postal charges would rise. Generally speaking, of course, budget leakages are regarded as shockingly nefarious, and are to be deplored. Information is disclosed for the purpose of enabling somebody to profit by trafficking in commodities the price of which will rise as a result of the budget. Fortunately, there has been very little if any of that in this country. The gigantic contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) to the welfare of our country is that there has been a leakage in regard to postal charges! I hope his children have not been buying up stamps, cornering the market before the price goes up. Then, he suggests there was another leakage. It is tragic to think that this is the type of contribution the Leader of the Opposition should make. He informs us that there was a leakage that there was going to be an increase in the allowances made in income tax for life assurance. Where could there be any trafficking in connexion with that? Who would profit by any foreknowledge of that? Whether there was any foreknowledge I do not know, but, if there was, who could profit as a result? It may have been just speculation that led to the suggestion because, over the years, even during the time of the Labour Government, representations have been made from time to time that for those who are self-employed there should be higher allowances for contributions made to life assurance. But, the point is: Who is trafficking in their own life assurance policies? Then, the Leader of the Opposition goes on to refer to broken promises. He did not give any specific details of promises that were broken. On the contrary, I think he very unfairly insinuated that instead of reducing taxation we have increased it. . He knows as well as anybody else who pays taxation knows, that the rate of taxation has been reduced considerably since we have been in power. In the many budgets that we have introduced, I think that in only two of them have we. failed to make substantial reductions in the rate of taxation. It is true that we collect considerably more revenue by way of taxation. For instance, last year the national income rose to £4,312,000,000, an increase of 6i per cent, over that of the previous year; but, as against that, wages rose by £209,000,000, or 9 per cent. I do not complain about the fact that wages rose, but the point is that whereas our national income rose by 6i per cent., wages rose by 9 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition was not quite fair in his comment in that respect, because he knows that during the last days of the Chifley Government, the basic wage was in the vicinity of £4 14s. or £4 15s., whereas the average wage paid to-day is in the vicinity of £17. The basic wage to-day is £ 14-odd, but the average wage paid throughout the Commonwealth is in the vicinity of £17. Another thing that must be borne in mind is that since the end of the war our population has increased by something of the order of 2,000,000. That being so, it is natural that our wages bill should go up, that our factory bills should increase, and that our professional earnings should be greater. More people are earning and, therefore, more are paying tax. In those circumstances, it is only natural that the amount collected by way of taxation should increase. But that was not the point the Leader of the Opposition made. I feel that he attempted to mislead the people into believing that we are paying a higher rate of taxation. The fact is that we are paying a lower rate of taxation. Our promise to reduce taxation has been faithfully and repeatedly fulfilled in successive budgets. Then the Leader of the Opposition mentioned restrictions. There was no country so tied and restricted, no country so hogtied by restrictions as was Australia when the angry disillusioned people of Australia threw the Chifley Government out of office an December, 1949. We have progressively wiped off restriction after restriction which we inherited from the socialist government. Perhaps, we were a little over-optimistic because at that time we did not know the tremendous heritage of misfortune that was ours as the result of seven years of unbroken socialist rule. Since that time, rationing !has gone, coupon tickets have disappeared and petrol rationing has been abolished. "We have fulfilled our promises to remove restrictions. We have not seen a ration book since 1950. We have not seen a queue of any sort, apart from places of amusement, since 1950. Those are some of the promises that we made and which we have fulfilled. It is true that we have had to reintroduce import restrictions; but certainly not to anything like the same extent as obtained during the time of the Chifley Government. They are re-introduced now purely for the purpose of protecting outoverseas balances, and we hope that they will be of a temporary nature. The Leader of the Opposition alleged that we have broken promises in connexion with immigration, but he did not go into details. He did not say that we are bringing in too many immigrants or that we are not bringing in enough, nor did he say whether we are bringing in the wrong types. He merely made the sweeping statement that the Government has broken its promises in connexion with immigration. Tt is very difficult to answer so general an allegation. The immigration policy of this country has been one of the greatest factors contributing to its development since the war. So far as I knew, it was a policy common to both sides of the House. It was launched initially by the Labour party, much to its credit, and I was under the impression that Labour was strongly in favour of immigration still, that it was, thank goodness, one of those items of policy which has risen above and transcends party political considerations in debate. This Government is very proud of its immigration policy and the contribution it has made to the development of Australia. Then, the Leader of the Opposition made the broad sweeping remark that we are short of hard currency trade, and he implied that somehow or other that is tied up with a broken promise. He did not say in what respect a promise has been broken in this direction, but he knows that our trade with hard currency countries is freer to-day than it ever was under the socialist government that reigned until 1949. Then, he said that we have broken our promise in connexion with defence. As a former Minister, he should know that in the last year of the Chifley Government's term of office the defence vote was £.39,000,000. 1 remind him that the defence vote this year is £190,000,000. Never in the history of Australia in peace-time has our country been in a better defence position. 129 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator Kennelly - We query that. 129 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - Of course the Labour party queries it. There has been some suggestion that we are not on a war footing. No freedom-loving people, in a time of peace,' is ever on a war footing or ready for immediate mobilization. No country in the free world is ever. ready for immediate mobilization during peace-time. It is not the policy of free people to be always on a war footing. As a peace-loving people in an era of peace, we are in pretty good shape. The situation of our Navy, Army and Air Force in an era of peace has never been better. It K certainly inconceivably better than it was when we inherited the reins of government from the' socialists in 1949. 129 KOW 0 0 HENTY, Norman Senator Henty - We built up Manus Island and they gave it away. 129 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - How the Labour Opposition has the temerity to stand up in this chamber and talk about: defence really bewilders a tolerant chap like myself. During World War II. , the Americans spent £100,000,000 on Manus Island. It. was the greatest bastion of freedom in the Pacific; greater and bigger than Singapore. When the war ended, the United States of America offered to continue to man and maintain Man us Island while allowing us free use of it. A little Australian, who was then in charge of our external affairs, told the United States to get out, and would not even negotiate on Manus Island. It has taken a long time for us to rebuild our prestige in the eyes of America. Thank goodness, under the enlightened and intelligent leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), Australia now stands very high in the esteem of the United States and the rest of the world. That status has been achieved in spite of the way in which the Americans' offer on Manus Island was turned down. When this Government was first elected to office, one Australian sergeant and a few natives were on Manus Island looking after the remnants of what had been the greatest bastion of freedom in the Pacific. Senator McKenna referred to social services and what this Government did to help those who are in need. It is most unfair - I will go further and say that it is very cruel - to use an occasion such as this to bad persons who are necessitous and in poor circumstances to think that, if only a Labour government were in power, their worries would be over and Father Christmas would walk among them once more. There is nothing more distasteful than an attempt to capture popular esteem by dwelling on the needs and hardships of the poor. These attacks are not new. They have been made on the occasion of each budget ever since this Government was elected to office. As the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has said quite aptly, the pensioners prefer to trust us rather than the Labour party with its specious and shallow promises. After all, this Government is not doing badly by them,' and they are not doing badly by us. During the last year of office of the Chifley socialist government, the amount distributed in social services benefits was about £82,000,000. This year, we are providing for an expenditure on those services totalling £226,000,000. That, in itself, indicates that we are not unmindful of the needs of the poor and our obligations to them. 1 was particularly interested in the statements by the Leader of the Opposition in connexion with customs tariffs. They are imposed pursuant to reports received from the Tariff Board, an independent tribunal which meets openly and takes evidence for and against increases of duties. As a result of recommendations by the Tariff Board, I am proud to say that this Government has increased customs duties for the purpose of protecting and encouraging worth-while and efficient Australian secondary indus-. tries. If the Leader of the Opposition is implying that the Labour party is not in favour of protecting Australian industries, I invite honorable senators on the Opposition side who support that proposition to stand and say so. We are prepared to protect efficient Australian industries to the extent recommended by the Tariff Board, but if the Australian Labour party is not in favour of assistance, protection and encouragement for efficient Australian industries, the Australian public should know where the Opposition stands in that connexion. In the course of his meandering address, the Leader- of the Opposition said that the Government had more or less sold its soul so that it could remain in office at any price. I remind the honorable senator that we do not keep ourselves in office. We have been elected by the enlightened, intelligent people of Australia, who have put us in office on four occasions - in 1949, 1951, 1 953 and 1 955. I have no doubt that when we go to the people of Australia again, they will return us with an even bigger majority. The Leader of the Opposition, in a shot out of the blue, referred to what he termed the " abortive royal commission on Petrov". Abortive? I think it was most fruitful. The free people of the world believe that, also. The free governments of the world have expressed their appreciation of the assistance they obtained through the commission. I do not understand how the Leader of the Opposition could call it abortive. I do not know what it has to do with the budget, either, except that he said that after diplomatic relations with Russia were broken off, our trade with that country fell from £27,000,000 to next to nothing. That is quite true within a few pounds. Our trade with Russia, before diplomatic relations were broken off. totalled about £27,000,000, but the Leader of the Opposition did not go back a year, and say that the purchases by Russia from Australia in that year totalled £600,000. That shows that the existence or lack of diplomatic relations has nothing whatever to do with trade. If Russia wants our commodities it will buy them. If it does not want them, it will not buy. It is sheer nonsense to suggest that Russia buys from us because it likes us. 131 KSL 0 0 MAHER, Edmund Senator Maher - Russia has been buying through continental agents. 131 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - Of course it has. The Leader of the Opposition began to talk about the increase in the bank rate of interest, but he did not continue with that theme, and I cannot follow him further. I do not know whether he is in favour of an increase or a reduction in the bank rate. In the general scheme of things, money is worth what persons who are not over-anxious to borrow will pay to a person who is not over-anxious to lend. I am amazed to learn that, under a Labour government in New South Wales, which has complete and absolute power to control the rate of interest within that State, the shocking rate of 20 per cent, on mortgages is allowed. That is permitted by a Labour government. It would never happen under a Liberal government. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that there had been something in the nature of nepotism or skullduggery in the Government's handling of television licences. 1 should like the Opposition to know that this Government's television legislation was brought down after a most exhaustive inquiry by a royal commission, which was widely representative and completely non-party. Our legislation on television is a model that the rest of the world could well follow. These little points of misrepresentation, these half-truths, which are just as bad as a complete mis-statement, should not be put forward in the way that has been adopted by the Opposition. We are accused of having handed over the assets of the Government's whaling undertaking to the Nor' West Whaling Company Limited. Let me inform honorable senators that we handed over those assets for a jolly good price; indeed, the highest pries obtainable. After all, we are in government to govern and not to trade. Moreover, we are not here to engage in trade and lose the people's money. To suggest that we lost £200,000 a year in handing over the whaling station is not a fair proposition. Although the whaling commission may have been making £200,000 a year, or perhaps more, about half that sum will come back to us in taxes. That, of course, was not mentioned by Senator McKenna. If all that Senator McKenna can find to accuse this Government of after it has been seven years in office, is a matter of the whaling station - and a few other minor matters - all I can say is that ours is a better government than I thought it was. After we have been governing for seven years, Senator McKenna has not found one substantial charge to level against us. That is praise, indeed, from the Opposition. Reference was made to the sale of the Commonwealth's shares in the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. That company was formed after World War I. when the late W. M. Hughes was Prime Minister, in order to attempt to make Australia independent of overseas sources for refined oil. But the amount of oil that Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited refined up to the time the Government sold its shares in it was infinitesimal. Indeed, it would probably fit into one or two petrol bowsers; it was not a real factor in solving our refined oil problem. The company consequently became merely a vendor of oil and the owner of petrol bowsers in cities, towns and villages throughout Australia. If the Australian Government is going to peddle oil round the country, why should it not open a book shop, a hat shop or a tailor's shop, and go into the retail business properly? Indeed, why should it not apply for a fruit-barrow licence in Sydney and one or two in Melbourne? 131 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - And go into the motor car business. 131 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - That is so. Senator McKenna did not point out to the people who might have be~n listening to him that during the term of office of this Government more than £100,000,000 has been spent in Australia by oil companies in building refineries, and that this country will soon be in the happy position of exporting refined oil and of casing to import it. Moreover, the refining of oil is now in the hands of trained oil experts and not in the hands of politicians or public servants. 132 KSL 0 0 MAHER, Edmund Senator Maher - The . Queensland Labour Government once owned a fish shop in which it sold the dearest fish in Brisbane. 132 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - Yes. Senator McKenna complained that this Government, although the owner of Trans-Australia Airlines, has helped its competitor, Australian National. Airways Proprietary Limited, to survive. 1 would be quite satisfied if throughout my life my most heinous crime was that of helping a competitor. That is not a sin which would weigh very heavily upon my conscience. Of course, we have helped Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to survive. We believe that monopolies are bad, and that government monopolies are probably the worst of all. We are happy to encourage a little competition, although the people own TransAustralia Airlines. Monopolies are not in the best interests of the people, and as we serve the people I hope that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited will continue to be allowed to survive and remain in competition with the government-owned airline. Out of that competition a better service will emerge to the benefit of the people of this country; and it is a function of good government to serve the people. Another most unfair approach made by the Leader of the Opposition was along the line that there are people in want, and whether it is their own fault or somebody else's does not matter. There are people who could be more comfortably situated than they are at present. Senator McKenna suggested that there is £98,000,000 tucked away in trust funds for defence, and other millions of pounds tucked away for social services. As a former Minister, he knows very well that this Government cannot go to a safe or strongroom and take out that money, because those funds are merely book entries; and the suggestion that we can put our hands on hundreds of millions of pounds and hand it out to alleviate distress is sheer and utter nonsense. It is worse than that; it is a cruel joke to play on those who need further help, which it is beyond the power of governments to give to them, to allow them to believe that we can get the money but that we are indifferent to their plight and will not bother about them. I repeat that the funds referred to by Senator McKenna are purely book entries. A suggestion has been made that prices control will solve most, if not all, the economic ills with which we are afflicted. The Labour party should know that that is not true, because it tried prices control and suffered under that system. I am not prepared to resist entirely the proposition that prices control cannot do anything. 132 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator Kennelly - Does not this Government agree to selective prices control? 132 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - I am making this speech; Senator Kennelly may speak later. 132 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator Kennelly - But the honorable senator favours selective prices control. 132 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - Senator Kennelly is getting ahead of me; he must have been reading my notes. I do not reject in its entirety the proposition that prices control is an ameliorating factor if it is selective and wisely applied and administered. But an overall prices control, although it may soften certain instances of economic difficulty, will not solve anything. There is only one answer to shortages, and that is the production of more goods and services. In the past, some honorable senators opposite have advocated that we should not go short of money, that we should go to the printing presses and turn out currency and issue bank credit. Whether Senator Kennelly agrees with that proposition or not, he will be able to say later; but that solution has been propounded by the Opposition in the past, and I have no doubt that it will be put forward again. 132 K0W 0 0 ASHLEY, William Senator Ashley - The honorable senator is anticipating our speeches. 132 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - No, I know the Opposition too well. The production of more money, more notes, more pieces of paper, will not add one box of matches to our national wealth. Only work and the production of goods and services will get us out of any future inflationary difficulties. I hope that no overseas investor or prospective investor has been listening to the debate to-night, because I have never heard such an apostle of gloom as the Leader of the Opposition appeared to be. "We shall all be ruined ", was his attitude. There was not one bright spot in our economy, either ahead of us or behind us, according to the honorable senator. That is a very poor advertisement for our country. Investors overseas regard Australia as the best and safest place in the world in which to invest their money. The hundreds of millions of pounds which have flowed into Australia, and are still flowing in from overseas for permanent investment, are a tribute to the soundness of our economy. Most of the difficulties that we are experiencing to-day are due to the fact that we are developing so rapidly in comparison with our limited resources of manpower and materials. We need more of both. The printing of paper money will not solve our problems. It would make the inflationary spiral more dangerous and devastating than anything else could possibly do. What we need in Australia - and in this the Opposition, with its undoubted influence among the trade unions could help the Government, because the Government has great confidence in the enlightened trade union movement - is co-operation to obtain the best results from man-power and material. If that is done, every one will benefit. The Government does not want to make a bigger cake merely for the purpose of getting a larger slice for itself. There is only one way in which we can get a bigger cake, that is by everybody contributing to the making of it and then being given a fair slice from it. I say again that the Opposition could use its undoubted influence with the trade union movement to assist in this direction. 133 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator Kennelly - I wish the Government had made provision in the budget for that to be done. 133 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - The Government has done so. Senator Kennelly had given me a glimmer of hope that he had reformed, but such an interjection causes him to slip back to where he was before in my political regard. Making provision to spend money without tangible results will not halt the inflationary spiral. 133 K0W 0 0 ASHLEY, William Senator Ashley - The proposed expenditure on the St. Mary's project has not been reduced by much. 133 JZI 0 0 O'SULLIVAN, Neil Senator O'SULLIVAN - I shall deal with that matter in the discussion on next year's budget. I hope that the people of Australia who may have been listening to Senator McKenna will not be infected or influenced by the story of gloom and despair that he has told. Rather would I pin my faith to statements such as those made by W. S. Robinson and W. S. Smith, who stated recently in the press that Australia was never in a more prosperous condition than at present, and that a glorious future for it was written in the skies. 133 K6W Tasmania Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour Party 0 0 COLE, George Senator COLE . - I have listened with interest to the speeches of Senator McKenna and Senator O'sullivan, but I could not get a lead from the speech of Senator O'sullivan because it was simply an answer to the propaganda speech of Senator McKenna. The speech of Senator McKenna made me rather afraid that an election would be held as soon as this budget is passed or rejected. One point in his speech to which I wish to refer is that concerning the Petrov commission, and a second is the loss of £27,000,000 in exports to Russia. Most of that amount was accounted for by the cessation of wool sales to that country, and all I can say is that £27,000,000 was a very cheap price at which to get rid of it. The budget is unimaginative, because it contains no overall plan to safeguard the economic future of Australia. It is depressing, because the burden of holding the economy together bears too heavily on the underprivileged and lower-income groups. It is ineffective because strong measures have not been taken to protect our economy against the undesirable activities of vested interests. A better budget could have been presented if it had been based - and now I, too, enter the propaganda field - on the platform put forward by my party at the last election. I shall give the Senate a summary of the points of my party's platform, which the present Government was asked to follow for the betterment of Australia. First of all, we asked for decisive and resolute control of banking and monetary measures for the balanced development of Australia. That has not been apparent in this budget. The next point was a programme of government expenditure on a level commensurate with labour resources. That does not mean that the labour resources were too great or too small. At the present time, there is a hint of unemployment in the country, and the Government must use its funds to provide employment on national works. The third point was a priority system for projects, with emphasis on decentralization. This is most important, and because the Government is the controller of the public purse, it must insist on a proper order for public works, even within a State. Other points were the development of export industries by market research, marketing credits and sales promotion schemes in Australia and overseas; action against exorbitant hire-purchase profits; stabilization schemes to ensure adequate returns for primary producers; and correction of one-sided features of the Ottawa agreement. To its credit the Government has been dealing with that matter. My party advocated also priority in man-power, finance and materials to basic industries such as power, iron and steel, engineering, building, transport and agriculture. Next was provision of funds for land settlement. It is most important to make certain that funds for land settlement are used to the best possible advantage. We advocated also the encouragement of the small businessman and shopkeeper as against big business and monopolies; the reduction of indirect taxation, including the abolition of sales tax; and excess profits to be made available to workers by profit sharing. That would greatly relieve the industrial unrest that is disturbing the country at the present time. Finally, we advocated a system of automatic adjustment of wages in accordance with cost-of-living changes. That programme could have been followed by this Government. If it had been, I should not have had to make the statement concerning the budget which I made in my opening remarks. What is our criticism of this Government's budget? We believe that the Treasurer and his advisers desire to keep the national economy stable, but that they are doin« little or nothing about it. Just like Mr. Micawber, they are waiting for something to turn up and hoping that things will right themselves. Such a policy offers a very poor prospect to those who are the chief victims of the present inflationary trend, namely, the pensioner and the family man. Pensions have been dealt with to-night and 1 assume that throughout the whole of this debate they will be dealt with at great length I remember standing in this chamber and advocating, that pensions should be taken out of the real-n of "arty politics. The Government did nothing about that, so once again we must deal with pensions in the party political arena. I still advocate that an independent tribunal should be set up to determine the true needs of the pensioners. The Public Service commissioners and other advisers inform the Government that a certain amount of money is needed for increases in salaries. Such a tribunal could perform a similar task in respect of pension rates. If the independent tribunal found that the pensioners should receive a certain sum of money, it would then be the Government's duty to find that sum. A few weeks ago I made a trip overseas. In Formosa I was encouraged to observe a philosophy of life which, I believe, has been lost in Australia. In Formosa, parents are the most important units of family lite, especially when they grow old. As they are looked after by their children and are given the best, the Government does not need to make provision for them; that is the responsibility of their children. That is a philosophy or way of life that is now unknown in Australia. It is a pity that we could not follow along those lines. It seems that we have reached a stage at which our own material well-being is uppermost and we demand that the pensioners virtually become wards of the State. That is our outlook, and if the Government is not going to do anything about the suggestion I made for the setting-up of a tribunal of the kind I have indicated and thus take pensions out of the realm of party politics, we must live up to our responsibility. Not so very long ago we increased our own salaries. We were justified in so doing, but it is a very poor thing to increase our own salaries and then, in this budget, fail to give additional aid to the pensioners. I appeal to the Government - and it is not yet too late - to take into consideration the lot of the pensioners. Honorable senators know as well as I do of the sad stories of the plight of pensioners that have been printed in the press and which we know to be true. Because of our philosophy of life, the pensioners are left to fend for themselves, and they cannot do so on £4 a week. Inflation exists, costs are going up, and I should have expected that in this budget at least some little crumb of comfort would have been given to the pensioners. But they have received nothing. I issue a warning to the Government. It is vital that these people be given some help. Otherwise, the budget should be referred back to another place, and 1 hope that it will be. 1 am sure that if it is, members of .the House of Representatives, and the Treasurer in particular, will do something to increase pensions and help these people. One matter upon which I congratulate the Government is its attitude towards institutions for these old people. The Government has done a very good job in helping private institutions and those run by religious organizations to look after aged and sick people. The Government has done a great job in that respect, but it must do something more practical. The grave indictment of the Government as far as this budget is concerned is that it has done little or nothing for pensioners at all. I should like to deal with child endowment. We believe that the family man in Australia must be looked after. It is essential that he have a reasonable standard of living. The single man receives the same salary as a married man does, but the married man has a greater responsibility, especially if he has a number of children. There is one way only in which we can raise the standard of the family man and that is by increasing child endowment. In 1948, a family man with four children received an additional 25.2 per cent, of the basic .wage to help him meet his extra responsibilities. In this year, a family man with four children receives only about 12.1 per cent, of the basic wage in endowment, or less than one-half of what he received in 1948. The extra needs of the family man can only be met by child endowment. I advocate here to-night the bringing in of a scheme to help the family man. As we all know, the maintenance of family life is important to Australia. At least, it safeguards this country from the inroads of communism. My party believes that endowment of 5s. a week should continue to be paid for the first child because, under the present wage- fixing system, provision is made for the first child. It is in respect of the second and subsequent children that additional endowment should be paid. Therefore, we consider that child endowment at the rate of £1 a week should be payable for the second, third and fourth children, £1 2s. 6d. for the fifth child, £1 5s. for the sixth child, and so on up to £2 a week for the tenth child. By this means, the income of family men would be put on a firm basis. It has been estimated that such a scheme could cost in the neighbourhood of £41,000,000. Government senators might ask, " Where is the money coming from? " I remind them that, only a few months ago, the Government increased its revenue by £115,000,000 a year by means of what was called the little budget. The additional revenue needed was found within a very short time. A further amount of revenue for the worthwhile objective that I have mentioned could just as easily be obtained. Figures in relation to pensions are reaching astronomical proportions. I think that it is time that the Government introduced a national insurance scheme, which would enable it to say to the people, " When you reach the age of retirement, you will be entitled to a certain pension as a right ". Of course, I do not say that the pensioners of to-day are not entitled to the pensions that they receive. They have done a great deal to assist the development of Australia. In order to provide further assistance for the family man, a system of savings certificates at attractive rates of interest, and perhaps tax free for the first £1,000, should be introduced. These certificates would be redeemable on marriage. By this means, young people would be able to acquire homes. Due to the restriction of credit, young married couples at present have great difficulty in obtaining housing loans. In addition, the Government should institute a system of marriage loans for ten-year terms, at low rates of interest, the capital sum owing to be progressively reduced on the birth of each child. Of course, this scheme has been advocated before. I am convinced that its introduction would encourage family life. As we all know, our own Australian children are our best immigrants. I come now to the financial situation. The- economy of this country is in a delicate state and this budget does nothing to improve it. I presume it is intended to be merely a holding budget. No concrete steps to overcome the inflationary pressures that are at present at work in this country have been proposed. The Government seems to be afraid to control prices or to tax excess profits. Its failure to deal with the hire-purchase octopus has added to the inflationary trend. Money that should be channelled into loans for public works is finding its way into the hire-purchase companies. Why should not the Commonwealth Bank be permitted to bring reasonable rates of interest into this field of finance? If it were permitted to do so, quite a lot of the money that is at present flowing into the hire-purchase companies would be invested in government loans. Sales taxation has been a bugbear for a great number of years. In my opinion, sales tax should not be imposed on foodstuffs or on domestic appliances. By foodstuffs, I mean scones, cakes and so on. I cannot see why sales tax should be imposed on such commodities. As far as domestic appliances are concerned, I consider that items such as refrigerators should be free of sales tax, bearing in mind our climatic conditions. In most parts of Australia, although perhaps not so much in Tasmania, a refrigerator is an absolute necessity in a home. I consider that the imposition of sales tax on foodstuffs and domestic appliances hinders the family man. The only equitable means of gaining revenue with which to implement my suggestions is by income taxation. I should like now to say a few words on defence. It is very pleasing to note that the Government has not been stampeded into reducing the defence vote. In view of the world situation to-day, our defences must be maintained at the highest standard possible consistent with the amount of money that is available for the purpose, because any show of weakness might be the sign for our enemies to step in. Honorable senators have seen what has recently happened in the Middle East. The British Government showed weakness by transferring troops from the Suez Canal zone to Cyprus. In consequence, there has been more trouble in Cyprus than there would have been if the troops had been left in the Canal zone. The safety and security of Australia are bound up in our defence strategy and our foreign policy, under which Australia must maintain the closest possible co-operation with the United States of America. America is the only country that can help us to any extent in any future war, and we should do nothing now to hamper that country's strategy of confining the menace of communism as much as possible to countries within Asia. If Australia does not play its part in that defence strategy, we can abandon all hope for the future. We must agree with the American outlook and do all we can to ensure that red China shall not be recognized by this or any other government in Australia. It is pleasing to note that there has been very little reduction in the provision for immigration, although, no doubt, pressure has been brought to bear upon the Government to cut down in this direction. It would be foolish to reduce our immigration programme. We urgently need to increase our population for the future progress and defence of Australia. We all know just how much New Australians have done in our factories and on our farms. If Australia is to progress and be adequately defended, it is essential that we maintain our immigration programme. I hope that it will not be long before the Government returns to the quotas it set last year, or to even higher figures. We depend on these people to make Australia the country we want it to be. The Government is also to be congratulated upon realizing the great disparity between the numbers of immigrants of the different sexes and upon taking steps to overcome that difficulty. The important thing to watch now is that we bring in immigrants in the correct categories. At the moment, because of lower intake, we rely on a system of selection. In those circumstances all steps should be taken to ensure that only immigrants in the correct categories shall be brought to this country. We need rural workers and specialized skilled labourers. Specialists are our most urgent need at the moment. There is also dire need for more housing in Australia. The Government has a responsibility in this respect because, under its immigration scheme which I have praised, it is bringing a great number of people to this country. Those people need homes and as the Government is responsible for immigration it must also bear some responsibility for housing. It controls the purse at the moment and if it is not satisfied that the States are expending wisely the money it has been making available to them for housing, it should take steps to ensure that they do so. This budget has certain good points which I have mentioned. Its great weakness is its failure to recognize the right of our pensioners to a higher standard of living. Again, I utter the warning that this budget could be defeated on that score alone. I, therefore, advise the Government to look at its budget proposals with a view to changing its attitude towards the needy people in the community. If it does that, I am confident that the pensioners will , realize that the Government is prepared to do something for their benefit. I sincerely trust that the Government will take another look at the budget and do what 1 have asked for the benefit of those people who are under-privileged. 137 K7Y 0 0 TANGNEY, Dorothy Senator TANGNEY - I rise to support my leader, Senator McKenna, in his motion of censure of the Government for its present budget. This budget has so many defects that it is rather difficult to know exactly where to begin criticizing it; but before criticizing it At all, I point out that we can see a glimmer of hope, perhaps some reason to believe that the Government is prepared to do something to ameliorate conditions in the social services field, limited though the improvements might be. I regret very much the fact that the Government has not seen fit to increase age and invalid pensions although it is deserving of some congratulation for at least being prepared to make some small allowance to widows with dependent children and to invalid pensioners who have more than one dependent -child. For years now, I have been pressing for some recognition of the widow pensioner who has family responsibilities. In May of last year I moved the adjournment «of the Senate in an endeavour to get something done for this section of the community. Small though the proposed tn- crease in the pension may be, at least it is recognition of a principle for which we have fought over the years. We are grateful for the recognition of that principle, out, at the same time, it is still essential to criticize the Government's lack of consideration for pensioners generally in this budget. I agree that the pensioners should not be made a party political football. They are a very important section of our community. They have helped to build up the country. They have reached the eventide of life and now deserve from the community something better than being required to exist on the small income of £4 a week. It is all very well for the Government to talk about other income that they may have, or the house which they may own or any other improvements of their conditions which it may have effected. All that does not in any way help the basic pensioner who has nothing but his pension upon which to exist. When Senator Cole spoke of the custom in Formosa of young people looking after their aged parents, I was wondering what happens to the spinster in that country. Their future looks pretty black, but reverting to the serious side of this matter, I remind honorable senators that the idea that the aged should be cared for by the young presupposes that the younger persons in the community have sufficient for their own needs. That is far from the truth to-day. This budget has done very little indeed to assist the average family man in his struggle to maintain his family adequately without having the added responsibility of his aged parents, no matter how well disposed to assist them he might be. It does not relieve the community of its responsibility. Although it is true that the Government has done much towards encouraging the building of homes for the aged by responsible bodies, that again only touches the fringe of this very serious problem, because Australia is a country in which the proportion of the aged to the young is increasing considerably. This problem is growing in importance each year. We must examine seriously all the conditions of our aged people, including the conditions of employment and sustenance, if we are going to have some sort of national policy towards them. That does not relieve us of the immediate necessity of seeing that those people are adequately fed, housed and clothed. We all know, from our day-to-day experiences, of the tragedies which beset those who have nothing but their pensions, and of the sufferings they undergo. We know of their privations and of the tragic deaths which come to them as a result' of their need in this land of plenty. It is all very well for us to make contributions to the needy peoples of Asiatic countries. Through this budget, no less than £3,500,000 will be dispensed in that way in aid through the Colombo plan and other agencies to the Asiatic countries. But surely we also have a big responsibility, and a prior responsibility, to the people of Australia, and particularly to those who have no one but the Government to ensure their subsistence because of factors which, throughout their lives, have prevented them from making provision for their old age. We also have superannuated persons who have made contributions from their salaries during their working years, only to find that they are prevented by the means test from getting the full pension. In that direction, thrift is not encouraged by the Government. No relief is afforded them in this budget. They will suffer severely again unless a supplementary budget is brought down very shortly to assist them to make ends meet. This has been a particularly severe winter on very old people, and if the Government cannot see its way clear to do something to increase the rate for those who have just begun to receive a pension, I enter a plea for the older persons among the age pensioners. I refer to those who are more than 70 or 75 years. Their need is the greatest. Their overcoats are worn out, but they cannot renew them. They are forced to go to public charities for clothing because prices are too high for them to be able to buy new clothes. It is years since many widows and aged have been able to go into a shop and buy anything new for themselves. We have to look at this problem realistically, and try to place ourselves in the same position as the pensioners, if we would realize the tremendous difficulty they have in trying to feed and clothe themselves on £4 a week. What is the use of budgeting for a surplus of £108,000,000 if, in getting that surplus, so many persons who have helped to build this nation are to be driven to the depths of despair because their basic needs cannot be met by small pensions? The invalid pensioner who does not happen to have dependent children will be no better off. Only those who have two children dependent upon them, and under the age of sixteen, will receive additional benefits. There are not many people in that category, and what appears to be a fine gesture proves to be one that costs the least. I am glad that the gesture has been made, but I wish it were more generous. In the case of child endowment, again there has been no increase since 1948 except that the first child is now endowed. I take full responsibility for the fact that the previous Labour Government did not endow the first child. I know that criticism will be levelled at us, but we did increase endowment on the second and subsequent children to 10s. a week in 1948, and the figure has remained unchanged ever since. If child endowment is taken in conjunction with the basic wage, which I use only as a yardstick and not as a definite guide, it will be found that the 10s. that was given in 1948 would have a value of £1 2s. 5d. to-day. That is not my estimate; it comes from the Government Statistician. In order to maintain the 1948 level in the field of child endowment, the payment should be at least £1 2s. 5d. for the second and subsequent children. Parents of large families are not being helped by this budget. The value of the child endowment they are receiving has so dwindled away that it is less than half what it was previously. As no increase has been given, parents are suffering the same disabilities as pensioners, and the budget is due for the same criticism as that levelled at its predecessor last year. Unemployment and sickness benefits are becoming increasingly important because of the allied problem of unemployment. During the last sessional period, I referred to unemployment in Western Australia. I was told by the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) that the figures I cited were grossly exaggerated, and that I was trying to get political kudos from them. No one wants to get political kudos out of the sufferings of other people. I was quoting facts as I knew them. During the parliamentary recess, I had occasion to investigate this matter because of the increasing number of unemployed who were coming not only to my office, but also to my home, and who were absolutely desperate. It is no exaggeration to say that things have not been so bad in that field since the middle 1930's. On a Monday or Tuesday morning any one who goes through the streets of Perth will see queues of people waiting in Queen-street, near the unemployment office. Those queues stretch down to William-street for two or three blocks, and the people wait to register for the unemployment benefit or to inquire whether any work is available for them. 1 have been informed that some men have been told that it is now a waste of time for them to go to the employment office in search of a job, that they should stay at home where they will be informed by letter or telegram if anything turns up. But I believe that, like Micawber's, their wait will be a long one. The unemployment benefit has not been increased under this budget, but the increased sum has not the same monetary value as it had when this Government assumed office. lt is becoming increasingly difficult for a man to maintain himself on the unemployment benefit in sufficient decency or dignity to enable him to continue the quest for employment. It is all very well for the Government to say, for example, " We have twenty vacancies for employment but only five or six applicants ". If the twenty vacancies are for nurses, and the five or six applicants for work are navvies, the vacancies are of no use to them. That sort of thing has been stressed by the Opposition, but the proportionate number of vacancies and applications for employment have not been explained or clarified by the Government. We should be told of the kinds of vacancies that exist and the kinds of jobs that people are looking for. Men have come to my office who have been desperate to take any sort of work anywhere, and I have been told by the employing authorities that men over 40 have no prospect of getting work. We have recently been talking about age pensions being payable at the age of 65, but what are we to do about men who cannot get work after they reach the ase of 40 years? What is to happen to them in the intervening 25 years? I suggest that that could become a desperate problem. Under the budget no increase will be made in the amount of the unemployment and sickness benefit. Now I come to maternity benefits. Payments in respect of maternity have not been increased since the last Labour Government left office. They are exactly the same as they were during the years of World War IT., although the expenses connected with the birth of a child have increased enormously. Hospital charges have skyrocketed, and although various hospital benefits and payments are made available through health and hospital societies, at the same time the actual maternity allowance to the mother herself to help her get the few extra things she needs, or to help her with assistance in the home, has not been increased during the seven years that this Government has been in office. The maternity allowance is very important to the mothers of Australa.' We talk about the young Australian being the best immigrant, but we do nothing to help him arrive here by increasing the payment to the mother at the time of the birth of her child. If the maternity allowance had been increased in the same proportion as other charges have been increased over the last seven years, the £15 payable in respect of the first child would now be £33 12s. 5d., the £ 1 6 payable in respect of the second child would be £35 17s. 3d. and the £17 10s. payable in respect of the third and subsequent children would be £39 4s. 6d. So, honorable senators will see that the more children a mother has the worse off she is financially. Another rather sad social benefit, the funeral benefit payable in respect of pensioners, remains at the sum of £ 1 0 although the cost of dying is getting almost as high as the cost of living. That allowance should be reviewed and adjusted. The only bright spot in all the budget papers is the recognition of the needs of the widow with dependant children, although what the Government has done is still far from the programme that the Opposition set before the Senate last year. A mother with two dependent children will get an income of £4 15s. plus the 15s. child endowment, and so she will still have to exist and bring up her children on a little more than one-third of the basic wage. She would have to be a magician to do that. If she does not get some more recognition by governments in this world, let us hope that she will get something in the hereafter. Otherwise, all our philosophy and striving will have been in vain. These widows have a terrific job to live and bring up their children in a decent way in order to make them good citizens. It is all to the good to bring immigrants from overseas to this country, but we must face up to the duties that we owe to our own citizens. Other charges imposed in this budget militate against the happiness and welfare of the average Australian family. For example, postal charges have been increased. It is not the additional halfpenny charged on a letter that will make a great deal of difference to people; but telegraph and telephone rates also have been increased. The biggest slug of all is the increase in radio listeners' licence-fees. It is too bad to put up a charge by 37i per cent, and to try to get away with that without a word being said about it in Parliament. The radio listener's licence-fee has been increased to £2 15s. 140 KNR 0 0 HANNAFORD, Douglas Senator Hannaford - It is the cheapest item that we have. 140 K7Y 0 0 TANGNEY, Dorothy Senator TANGNEY - It may suit honorable senators to pay such a high licence-fee, or a person who can afford to have half a dozen radio sets and pay the one fee for them all, but it is a heavy impost on a man with a family who is perhaps struggling to pay off his radio set. It might not be too much for an honorable senator to pay, because it represents perhaps only one day's expenses while living in Canberra; but it means a lot to the family man when it is added to other increased charges, including medical and hospital benefit fees. All these charges are really taxes, although they are not recognized as such. I strongly censure the Government for having increased the radio listener's licence-fee by 37£ per cent. It is iniquitous and should be reconsidered. Senators from Western Australia naturally regret that the Government has not paid greater regard to the pleas which have been made from representatives of all parties in this House for greater recognition of the disabilities of settlers in the outback portions of our State, the Northern Territory and Queensland. Much greater rebates in taxation should have been allowed than the paltry sums granted in the budget. Senator Scott might notice that we consider that the people who go into the northern areas of Australia, invest their capital and spend their lives doing what they can to develop and defend these outback parts of the continent, should be given a much greater incentive to do so than the very small taxation remission which has been provided in the budget. The budget could be criticized on many points, and it has been very difficult, within the space of half an hour, to cover all the ground I should like. I hope that the Government will re-examine its social services programme. Any government which takes more notice of the amount of gold in its bank vaults than of the happiness of the people is heading for a downfall, and the sooner this Government falls the better it will be for the nation. 140 KQQ South Australia 0 0 LAUGHT, Keith Senator LAUGHT . - I support the budget, and I shall endeavour to dispel the gloom which has been cast by the speeches of members of the official Opposition. I shall begin by referring to a statement made by Mr. W. S. Robinson, one of the great elder men of Australia. This gentleman has had a long, career in Australia. He was adviser to the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes from 1915 to 1920, and during World War II. was adviser to the Right Honorable John Curtin, the Right Honorable J. B. Chifley and the Right Honorable H. V. Evatt. In the concluding paragraph of a letter which appeared in most of the newspapers throughout Australia recently, he wrote - I know of no country offering greater opportunities to those prepared to assist in her development. No country stands to benefit more than Australia from the discoveries of science. Her future will be great. Since 1949, the population of Australia hasrisen from fewer than 8,000,000 to approximately 9,500,000 and there has been a migration intake of approximately 1,000,000. The national income is at present at an all-time record. In the few years that this Government has been in office it has risen from £2,285,000,000 to- £4,312,000,000. There are vast national development projects under way, such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme, an agricultural revolution is in progress in many parts of Australia as a result of the advent of trace elements, and pastures over large areas have been improved. There have been great mineral finds in the Northern Territory and Queensland, and within the last few days we have learned of the discovery of a large deposit of bauxite which will lay the foundation for the extension of our aluminium industry. In the last few years, Australia has achieved great status and is now playing a very important part in international affairs. Possibly at this minute the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is undertaking one of the greatest assignments that has ever been given to a human being in this twentieth century, the negotiation of a settlement of the dispute with Egypt over the control of the Suez Canal. Australia is a truly great country, but, after listening during the last two or three hours to the speeches of honorable senators opposite, .one could have gained the impression that they are living in another age and are not facing the great challenge that now confronts us. The problem is to strike a balance between the long-term objectives of development and population growth, and the more immediate requirements of preserving the prosperity and stability of this growing community. Of course, there is the danger of " boom and bust ", which must be watched. I propose to discuss some matters which I consider of greatest importance. Some honorable senators opposite have said that this is a disastrous budget, and that was the implication in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). However, honorable senators may be interested to know how the commercial community has reacted to the budget. One would think that if it were disastrous, and would result in increased costs which the Leader of . the Opposition suggested would have a momentous effect on our economy, there would have been a certain amount of panic on the stock exchange, but the very reverse has occurred. The bond market - that is, the market for Australian Government securities - has firmed day by day since the budget was brought down. The share price index figures during the last seven days have also been a revelation. Before the budget was delivered the index figure for bank shares was 169.08, but to-day it is 170.72. The figure for retail stores a week ago was 237.70, but now it is 243.28. Industrial shares have risen to almost the same extent. There has been a considerable firming, and even an increase of confidence since the budget was read. The preservation of the sound and stable economic conditions which the Government set its mind to achieve has been received as an accomplished fact. In order to increase development, it is necessary that Australia should encourage the investment of more public and private overseas capital. We want capital to come here and remain, and to leave its earnings here for re-investment. It is encouraging to know that recently, when the Prime Minister was in the United States of America, he was able to make arrangements for a further loan from the International Bank. The Opposition begins to moan when I refer to the International Bank, but I remind them that the loans obtained from that source have been of the greatest assistance to Australia during the last five years. The whole point is that every time the confirmation of one of these loans comes before this chamber Opposition senators to a man vote against it. Thereby, they have voted against the introduction into this country of beneficial earth-moving equipment, equipment for coal-fields in South Australia, and equipment for the dieselization of the east-west railway and for other important developmental projects. By their vote every honorable senator opposite has voted against the introduction of these beneficial things, and it is evident, as a result of their grizzling this evening, that when such a loan comes before the Senate for ratification they will vote against it. They are now revealing their attitude in respect of the future development of Australia. Do they want the money for this development to be taken out of the peoples' pockets by taxation, or are they prepared to support this Government in its approach to the International Bank for this accommodation? I repeat that the help this country has received from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has been invaluable, and I am proud of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has been able to negotiate a further loan. I believe that certain eminent gentlemen associated with the bank are in Australia at the present time. Let me now say a word or two about the budget itself. In effect, it is a document to provide £1,121,000,000 to meet expenditure. Defence will take £190,000,000, approximately the same as last year; repatriation services, £123,000,000; social services, £222,000,000, a rise of 5 per cent.; and payments to the States, £243,000,000, a rise of 10 per cent. These vast sums of money can be raised either by taxation, by loan or by both. It is of great importance that the Senate should study the subject of loan raisings within Australia to see if there are ways in which we can improve our approach to the public in that sphere. It should be remembered that if the money is not raised by loan, it will be raised by taxation; and it has always been the aim of this Government to reduce taxation rather than to raise it. It has also been the policy of this Government to pay for capital works out of loan moneys, but the Government has virtually vacated the loan-raising field for its own works in favour of the States. It has underwritten the States' loan programme to a very large extent, and the gap which has to be bridged by the shortfall in loan raisings is being made up. by taxation. The support given to the States has been quite considerable over the last three years. In addition to normal taxation re-imbursements it has reached the extent of £91,000,000. That support has had to be given because of the short-fall of loan raisings. I propose to develop further the subject of loan raisings. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 142 miscellaneous Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to - That the Senate at its rising adjourn to to-morrow at 10 a.m. 142 22:56:00 Senate adjourned at 10.56 p.m.