Senate
9 October 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the) chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 969

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, concerns the danger which birds constitute to aircraft, particularly jet aircraft, at the Kingsford-Smith airport in Sydney. By way of preface, I understand that on at least two occasions mishaps have occurred because birds have been sucked into the engines of jet aircraft. I believe that the birds are drawn to the area-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator should ask his question.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I ask the

Minister whether there is any possibility of reaching an agreement with the Government of New South Wales or the appropriate local body with a view to averting this prospective danger from birds at the Kingsford-Smith airport.

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

– I cannot answer directly the last part of the honorable senator’s question because I understand that, although the Prime Minister has sent a specific request to the Premier of New South Wales, no reply has yet been received. I imagine that the Premier is considering all the implications of the request. This is a serious matter. Tt has caused anxiety to civil aviation authorities, not only at Mascot but throughout the world. I know that my department has used a number of methods to try to rid the environs of the Kingsford-Smith airport of this menace. Those methods have included shooting and the use of scarecrows and artificial devices to frighten away the seagulls, but without success. As I have informed the Senate on a previous occasion, in more recent times we have solicited the aid of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization which has given us great co-operation in the matter. Obviously, the way to eradicate the danger altogether is to have the dumps removed from the site. This, in essence, is what the Prime Minister has asked the Premier of New South Wales to consider.

page 969

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise, who represents the Minister for Immigration in this chamber. I preface it by stating that in giving the reason for the rejection of Mr. Harold Orr’s application for residence in Australia, the Minister for Immigration said it had no reference to Mr. Orr’s religious views or private morality. In view of that statement, the Minister’s refusal to deny that the reasons were related to Mr. Orr’s political views and activities leave the implication that they are so related. Will the Minister for Customs and Excise now say whether it would be injurious to the operations of any government department to state whether or not Mr. Orr’s political views and activities are relevant to his rejection and what his political views and activities are?

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

– Mr. and Mrs. Orr are in Australia on visitors’ permits, which have now expired. If the honorable senator were to go to the United States of America on a visitor’s permit, and he wanted to stay there after the permit had expired, I am quite confident that he would be told that his time was up. This is the law of the land in relation to Mr. Orr. His permit has expired and he is the only one who does not seem to realize that it is time for him to go home.

page 969

QUESTION

MALAYSIA

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs. Will the Minister make known to the Senate such information as he has of activities, if any, in the region of Borneo and Sarawak? Specifically, is the report confirmed by any information in the Government’s possession that Malaysian fishing vessels have been interfered with or sunk in that area in recent days?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I shall bring the question to the notice of the Acting Minister for External Affairs and ask him whether he has any statement that he can make on the matters raised.

page 969

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF BRANDY

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and

Excise. What is the total amount of brandy that has been imported into Australia in the past three years? What is the source of such imports? Has the Minister any information regarding the raw materials used to make imported brandy? What duty is paid on such brandy? Is it a fact that sufficient brandy of all types and qualities is at present being manufactured in Australia? Is the Minister aware that current imports of brandy are causing concern to grape-growers throughout Australia and, in particular, to those in the upper Murray district?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have not the actual figures for which the honorable senator asks, but if he puts that part of the question on the notice-paper I will get the information for him as soon as I can. I know quite well that imports of brandy increased last year, but I understand that the increase has not continued recently. I believe that the position is now a little better.

page 970

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry concerning the proposal, to which great publicity has been given, for the Australian Wool Board to levy wool-growers £2 18s. 6d. per bale. I ask the Minister to correct me if that figure is not accurate. I should like to know whether that proposal has been submitted to the Government and whether it has been approved in any way by the Government. I should also like to know whether the proposal is accompanied by a suggestion that the Government should pay a matching grant and whether the Government has agreed to the suggestion.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– The Australian Wool Board has indicated to the wool industry that it requires a levy of £2 4s. a bale over the next five years to finance what it regards as the minimum publicity campaign necessary in its efforts to promote wool in opposition to the evergrowing threat of synthetics. The chairman and several members of the board are touring the Commonwealth addressing meetings of growers and emphasizing the urgent need for the additional finance. It is true that the board has made a submission to the Government, but at this point of time the Government has not actually considered the submission. I understand that before a decision could be made certain information was required by the Government in addition to that supplied by the board. I understand further that the Government’s attitude to his proposal will be announced without any undue delay.

page 970

QUESTION

COAL

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. What progress has been made towards the constitution of a national coal research council and towards the establishment of Australian coal industry research laboratories, both of which were recommended in the report of the Coal Utilization Research Advisory Committee which was made to the Minister on 20th March, 1962? Will the Minister treat these as matters of urgency in order to protect the interests of people dependent for their livelihood on the. coal industry?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– A series of discussions was first necessary on the departmental level between the officers concerned. I think I am . correct in saying that those discussions concluded last week. The secretary of the Department of National Development, Sir Harold Raggatt, visited each State and discussed the report that had been received, not only with officers of the State mines departments but also with representatives of the coalmining industry and the principal coal users. Senator Murphy will remember that it was proposed that the research council would bring into co-operation not only the coalmining industry and governmental authorities but also the coal-consuming industries - the steel, gas-making and other industries. The discussions on a departmental level have been concluded although I have not yet had a memorandum on the matter from the departmental officers. All I know, by way of a conversation, is that the discussions progressed satisfactorily. It was contemplated originally that after those discussions had concluded there would be a formal round-table conference followed by a ministerial conference. I think that State and Commonwealth officers believe that sufficient agreement has been reached to allow the elimination of the intermediate process, and that we might proceed direct to a ministerial conference. I should think that within the next week or so I would get firm proposals to that effect.

page 971

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for the Navy seen a report that, according to defence experts, the new destroyers being purchased from the United States of America, equipped with sea-to-sea guided missiles, are not the complete answer to air cover for ships of the Royal Australian Navy, and further that senior naval officers are concerned at the lack of air cover for ships of the Australian Navy because the fixed-wing aircraft in service with the Navy, namely Sea Venom jet fighters, are obsolete by world standards? Is this report correct, or are the Government’s naval advisers completely satisfied with the existing and proposed new fighting strength of the Royal Australian Navy as outlined in the Government’s defence statement in May of this year?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I have not actually seen the report referred to by the honorable senator. Senator McClelland commenced his question by referring to the new destroyers being built in the United States of America. These ships are fitted, as to the main part, with sea-to-air guided missiles and not sea-to-sea guided missiles, as he stated. I think it is generally understood that these sea-to-air guided missiles are operational and are to be used in the event of a bombing attack developing in a conventional way over a fleet or a convoy at sea. For those purposes they are thoroughly effective. There is also no doubt whatever that for purposes outside the range of such sea-to-air guided missiles, for the interception of raiders before they came within the range of such missiles, great assistance can be given by fixed wing aircraft for the protection of ships at sea. Indeed, I think that this was one of the reasons why the Government continued fixed wing flying from the aircraft carrier which is at present in service with the Navy.

I am not quite sure what the honorable senator means when he says that these aircraft are obsolete by world standards. Whether or not a piece of equipment is obsolete depends entirely upon the work that it is called upon to do. It is perfectly true that the Sea Venoms at present in service with the Navy would not be capable of engaging in dog fights, for instance, with the most modern fighters of the M.I.G. type. On the other hand, they would be perfectly capable of coping with aircraft, say, shadowing a fleet, which needed to be driven off, or with a bomber aircraft attacking a fleet outside the range of the fighter aircraft which might protect that bomber aircraft.

Similarly, the Gannet anti-submarine aircraft in service have a particular task to do, which is mainly occupied with antisubmarine work and attack on surface ships. They are capable of doing that work quite well. Though they are not the most modern type of aircraft for that particular purpose, they still have a very worthy job to do. Indeed, the Gannet carries, I think, sixteen rockets underneath its wings, which are quite nasty for surface ships to have to cope with.

page 971

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation or of his department been directed to a statement attributed to Sir William Hildred. chairman of the International Air Transport Association, made at the opening of the nineteenth general meeting of the association, held in Rome recently, to the effect that Qantas Empire Airways Limited and other major world airlines must cut air fares to get more business? A report in the Adelaide “ News “ of yesterday’s date states that Sir William called for drastic fare cuts. As Qantas, despite its excellent record, still has an average percentage of vacant capacity, does the Minister think there is a possibility of Qantas’s heeding Sir William’s words, thereby reducing the cost of air travel to and from Australia and possibly causing some reduction in sea fares?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Sir William Hildred is the secretary of the International Air Transport Association. During the last twelve months there have been considerable discussions, not only at the usual executive meetings of that body but also at meetings of the organization itself called especially to discuss the question of fares on international air routes. The honorable senator will no doubt recall that I answered questions quite recently on the outcome of two special meetings which had been held in connexion with fares on the north Atlantic route. The whole question is receiving the continuing consideration of the International Air Transport Association and its independent members.

The honorable senator refers to the fact that the Qantas passenger load factor would appear to suggest that there is a rather larger than acceptable absence of passengers in international aircraft generally. It is a characteristic of the international airline business that it does not achieve the same passenger load factor as do domestic airlines, for example. In point of fact, the Qantas passenger load factor compares very favorably - indeed, more than favorably - with that of most international operators. The whole question, let me repeat, of air fares on the international services is under examination and discussion. Probably within the course of the next five or six months some positive progress will be made in respect of this matter.

page 972

QUESTION

INDONESIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs recall that, in a reply to a question by Senator Laught on 19th September, he stated that the last report from the Australian Ambassador in Indonesia had indicated that there were no threatening moves against Australian property or nationals in Indonesia and that he did not expect that any such moves would develop? On the same day, were not Australian women and children evacuated by air from Djakarta to Singapore? Was the Minister misinformed as to the actual position? On whose authority did such evacuations take place? Was there, at any time, a danger to Australian residents in Indonesia? If so, were representations made to the Indonesian Government before a decision was made to evacuate?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I remember that, in reply to a question which was asked on approximately that date, I told the Senate that the latest reports received by the Government had indicated that no damage had been caused to Australian property in Djakarta and that no Australian national had been in any way molested. I pointed out that these reports had been received by the Government prior to the burning of the British Embassy but that the latest indications from the area were that that situation still existed - there had still been no damage to Australian property and no Australian citizen had been molested. That, in fact, was the position. That, in fact still is the position. No damage has been caused to Australian property and no Australian citizen has been molested. It is a matter of judgment as to whether there was or was not danger to Australians in Djakarta. Although nobody had been molested, in the disturbed circumstances existing, it was considered prudent both by the Australian Ambassador in Djakarta and by the Minister for External Affairs here to evacuate the wives and children of Australian citizens in Djakarta in case they might be molested. I think that was a wise course to follow.

page 972

QUESTION

AUSTRALASIAN PERFORMING RIGHT ASSOCIATION LIMITED

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Acting AttorneyGeneral request his colleague to investigate an organization operating in New South Wales and, no doubt, throughout Australia, known as the “ Australasian Performing Right Association Limited”? The standover methods of this organization which demands £10 annually for every radio, television set and coinoperated gramophone in registered clubs, hotels and places of entertainment are causing considerable concern, particularly as the ordinary licence fee is paid to the Commonwealth. As the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited operates under the Commonwealth Copyright Act, could information be secured as to the sum of money it receives from organizations in each State; the amount of money kept toy the association for payment of staff and other expenses; and the sum paid to musicians, writers and artists whose interests this association is supposed to represent?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I will not request the Acting Attorney-General to investigate this organization but I will bring to his notice the fact that the honorable senator thinks, on grounds that have not been advanced specifically, that the organization should be investigated. I will leave it to the Acting Attorney-General to decide whether any action is called for.

page 973

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate when air travellers between Western Australia and the eastern States will be provided with more up-to-date and efficient aircraft, a better time-table, and a better service? Is there any authority which protects the working conditions of air hostesses who are required to work on this route - which protects them against having to work excessively long hours as a result of delayed flights arriving late in Perth and against being rostered to work return flights to the east without having sufficient time off duty to obtain reasonable rest? What action is taken to police the working hours and conditions of air hostesses and others which are being affected as a result of delays on the east-west route?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Although I am not familiar with the detail of the provisions of the award which covers air hostesses, I am aware that industrial provision is made for this kind of employment. It must be obvious to everybody that, in the event of delay, it may be necessary for an air hostess to work longer than her rostered hours. Provision for that is made in the necessary industrial arrangement, whatever the form it takes.

The honorable senator asks how the provision is policed. I cannot tell him, but I should think it would be policed in much the same way as any other award which covers a comparable type of employment. The provisions are well known not only to the hostesses themselves but also to the airline companies. I should think that if there was any breach of the award, even though it might be unintentional, it would certainly be brought immediately to the notice of those whom it was appropriate to notify.

page 973

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I address the following questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: - Has the Minister had time to study the academic oration that was delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. McEwen, about a week ago to the Australian Institute of Management and in which he emphasized the need for the Government and industry to work in closer association? Was the. meeting concluded by the singing of “The more we are together the happier we will be “? Was the Deputy Prime Minister expressing his own personal point of view? Does the Minister recall that when I suggested this proposition on several occasions he ridiculed the idea and said that Mr. McEwen would not give my suggestions a second thought? Does he not now agree that business and . government can each make their operations more effective by working more in concert and closer together? Arising out of these get-together discussions, does the Government feel that industry will accept its national responsibility in ensuring that the important and necessary legislation in regard to restrictive trade practices will soon be put into effect?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER.Mr. McEwen is such a hard-working colleague of mine that I really cannot keep up with all the speeches he makes I wish I had his energy and ability. I do not know of the particular speech to which Senator Hendrickson has referred. I am quite certain that it was in keeping with Mr. McEwen’s usual high standard and was constructive. I do not recall that I said the Government and industry could not work together, because such co-operation is the foundation of so many of our arrangements. We have many advisory committees of different kinds in which we get great benefit from talking to industry about business conditions, and I am quite certain that industry derives great benefit from seeing the governmental approach.

” OPERATION BLOWDOWN.”

(Question No. 64.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. What was the total cost of “ Operation Blow- down “ carried out by the Australian Army in north Queensland las! month?
  2. What was the total cost of simulating an atomic explosion in the exercise?
  3. What were the results achieved, if any, from the simulated atomic explosion?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers: -

  1. ” Operation Blowdown “ was a joint under taking carried out by the Department of Supply and the Department of the Army. The overall cost of the operation was estimated to be of the order of £110,000. Detailed final expenditure has not yet been established, but it is not envisaged that this amount will be exceeded.
  2. The whole operation was a scientific experiment designed to assess the blast effects of a large explosion in a tropical forest. The experiment employed some tens of tons of conventional high explosives and was undertaken to provide information on the probable obstruction to movement of ground troops and the damage which could be caused to equipment and personnel by flying debris. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the actual cost or quantity of explosives used.
  3. Present indications are that overall results have been highly satisfactory, and will provide military information of major significance which to date has not been available to us or our allies.

page 974

QUESTION

BANKING

(Question No. 112.)

Senator WHITESIDE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

What were the profits of private trading banks for each of the last five years?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasury has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question:

The following table shows the net profits after payment of taxes of the private trading banks for each of the last five years as published by the Commonwealth Statistician. Profits for 1963 have not yet been published by the Commonwealth Statistician but are stated in those cases where they have been published by the bank concerned: -

page 974

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - I have received from Senator Kennelly an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance namely -

The disadvantage and inequities of making ten shillings (10s.) the basic unit in the proposed decimal currency and of limiting the minimal unit to one cent.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

. -I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow at 11.30 a.m.

My reason for moving the motion is to permit the Senate to discuss the disadvantages and inequities of the Government’s decision to make 10s. the basic unit in the decimal currency and to limit the minimal unit to one cent. You will recall, Mr. President, that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in his policy speech five years ago said that the Government accepted the principle of decimal currency, and that if the Government were returned to office a committee would be established to recommend how and when the new system should be introduced. . The Government was elected, and in 1959 it established a committee to inquire into the proposal. The committee finished its report in August, 1960, more than three years ago. In those three years the Government has made very little progress in putting the committee’s recommendations into operation.

The Government made a remarkable decision when it decided to name the principal unit of the new currency the “royal “. When the decision was announced the people were amazed and, as usual, the Government went to cover. Now, I am pleased to say, it has agreed to name the new currency unit the dollar In this respect, it repeated what it has done over and over since the last election, and has again displayed its happy knack of following the intentions of the Australian

Labour Party. I hope that the Government will follow the example of the Australian Labour Party and give mature consideration, to another important aspect of this question. According to a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), as reported in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 8th April last, the new major unit of decimal currency will be equal in value to the present 10s. The Decimal Currency Committee adopted as the criteria of major importance in a decimal currency system that it should be uncomplicated and simple; that the relationship between the old and the new systems should be readily seen; that the new system should require as few notes and coins as possible; that it should bc appropriate to the needs of the community; and that it should permit of the most advantageous use to be made of the present monetary machinery. The committee decided, having considered all the alternatives, that the 10s. unit would be best suited to meet those requirements.

I have taken a little trouble to read the whole of the report and I am not so sure that that is the best unit to adopt. I believe that a unit worth 8s. 4d. would be better. When we refer to Appendix D at page 133 of the report of the committee we find that it did not discuss the relative merits of the 10s. unit and the 8s. 4d. unit. The report states -

The following comparison of the lOs.-cent unit and the 8s. 4d.-cent decimal currency systems has been taken from the Report of the New Zealand Decimal Coinage Committee 1959. The New Zealand Committee narrowed the choice to these two, and eventually decided in favour of the lOs.-cent system, one Member dissenting.

It is remarkable that a committee appointed by this Government to undertake such an important task should have adopted the whole of the arguments in this respect from the report of a committee which had been set up in another country, however friendly that country might be. The Decimal Currency Committee had the right, of course, to consider the findings of similar committees in any part of the world, but I would have been much happier if it had not taken holus bolus from the report of another committee, as it appears to have done, the arguments for and against. I say that with respect to the people who composed the committee. I know three’ of them very te v . i- well. Unfortunately, Mr. S. F. Vine, who was a member of the committee, has died since the report was presented.

I cannot understand why the committee did not include in its report information concerning the inflationary tendency which would follow the adoption of a basic unit equal to our present 10s. Let me state the position very briefly. If the major unit is the equivalent of our present 10s., and if each cent, is to be the equivalent of 1.2d., articles which now cost 3d. automatically will sell for 3 cents under the new coinage system. This will mean an increase of .6 of Id., or 20 per cent., in the price of those articles. This contention is born out by the issue of Jobson’s investment digest of 28th June last. At page 389 there is a table which sets out the percentage gain when pence are converted to cents.

The Labour Party is not opposed to the principle of decimal coinage, but it is concerned with some aspects of the proposed changeover because it realizes that extremely few people in Australia have studied the effect that the adoption of the new systems will have on them. There are people, both inside and outside the Parliament, who seem to take it for granted that the adoption of a system of decimal currency will be an excellent thing, but they have not considered the deeper implications of it. Jobson’s investment digest indicates that where the current value of an article is Id., the possible decimal value will be. one cent, which means that there will be an increase of 20 per cent, in the price of the. article. If the price of an article to-day is 2d. and the price becomes 2 cents, there will again be a gain of 20 per cent., and similarly, with an article which costs 3d. to-day and 3 cents under the new system. For an article which costs 6d. to-day and 5 cents under the new system there will be no increase, but for an article which costs 7d. to-day and 6 cents under the new system there will be a increase in price of 2.9 per cent. For an article costing 8d. to-day and 7 cents under the new system the increase will be 4.9 per cent. It will be 6.7 per cent, for an article which now costs 9d. and which costs 8 cents under the new system, and it will be 8 per cent, for an article which now costs lOd. and costs. 9 cents subsequently. If an article which costs lid. to-day is sold for 10 cents, the increase will be 9.1 per cent.

Only a few weeks ago we were delighted to learn that sales tax on certain commodities had been reduced to 124 per cent. While the benefit of the reduction has been passed on in some instances it has not been passed on in all instances. 1 know that to be so from m’y own observations. One should look also at what the Government has already done. The charge for a local telephone call has been increased from 4d. to 6d. One of the reasons advanced for this increase was that it would enable the same equipment to be used when the new decimal currency coinage is introduced. Of course, the Government was not prepared to wait for the introduction of decimal currency; it immediately increased the charge to 6d. Expressed as a percentage, the increase is substantial. lt is interesting to look at the class of goods that fall within the price ranges - all newspapers, most foodstuffs, bread, milk, dairy produce, vegetables, confectionery, petrol and oil, and also beer and cigarettes. I know that no honorable senator would want me to lament an increase in the price of beer or, for that matter, an increase in the price of the last commodity of which I spoke. The view that I am submitting is confirmed by what happened in South Africa when the basic unit was fixed at 10s. with each cent worth 1.2d. I have been advised on this matter by a South African who has come to live in Australia. He is an eminent person who does not want me to reveal his name, but I am quite prepared to supply his name in confidence to any honorable senator who wishes to have it.

This man informed me that oil, which formerly sold at ls. lOd. a pint, is now sold for 70 cents. As each cent represents 1.2d., the price of oil increased by approximately 9 per cent. The price of daily newspapers that cost 3d. rose to 3 cents, an increase of 20 per cent. I believe that there is only one newspaper in Australia that is now sold for 3d., and that is an evening paper in Melbourne. Bread rolls and buns which formerly sold at 2d. each or six for ls. went to 2 cents each or five for 10 cents, an increase of 20 per cent. The price of beer rose from ls. 2d. a pint to 12 cents, an increase of 3 per cent. It is interesting to see that penny stamps for use on receipts were replaced by 1 cent stamps, an increase of 20 per cent. I do not know whether Id. stamps are now used in Australia for this purpose.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You are referring to duty stamps?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, for receipts. In South Africa the lid. stamp was replaced by the li cent stamp, which was an increase of 20 per cent. The 4d. stamp was replaced by a 3i cents stamp, representing an increase of 5 per cent. I could cite many more examples, but J want to get on to other matters.

I was informed also that the prices of more expensive items were rationalized to the nearest 5 or 10 cents figure. Thus, something costing 16s. 8d. prior to the introduction of decimal currency would be rationalized to 1 rand 70 cents. My informant said that evidence of this system of increase prices was to be seen throughout the economy. Surely if any nation has had a dose of inflation, Australia has. Every one is pleased that in recent years our economy has been on an almost even keel. I suggest that price rises can be avoided in Australia if the basic unit of decimal currency is 8s. 4d., that is, 10Od. There will be no need for increases in the price of various articles. I do not want to single out the press but it provides a useful basis of comparison. A newspaper that now costs 4d. or 5d. would automatically cost 4 cents or 5 cents. I believe that we should be the last to tempt providence with respect to inflation. Let us leave the dead past and the bad past buried, where it ought to be. Inflation has caused Australia enough trouble, particularly in respect of our export position, and we do not want that trouble to happen again.

The advantages of a unit valued at 8s. 4d. have been set out by the Australian Decimal Research Organization in its volume of May, 1960. They include: Price rises on the adoption of the 10Od. system will be avoided because all existing £.s.d. values have exact equivalents. Inflationary tendencies will be avoided on a change to the 100d system. This is because the cent will have the same value as a Id. and there will be no need to adjust prices. The next advantage mentioned is that overseas travelling, transactions and trade will be facilitated by the adoption of the100d. system. For example, three major units of currency at 8s. 4d. a unit equal £1 sterling. On a change to the100d. system all coins and notes have exact values in the decimal system and can be used temporarily during the change. The100d. system means that eventually, but at leisure, a complete set of new silver coins can be introduced. These could be more convenient for everybody to handle than our present currency. The only trouble is that the average person in Australia does not have enough of our present currency. I am not advancing that as one of the main arguments, but I believe that our people should not have to risk the inflationary tendencies that must follow a change.

The Decimal Research Organization states, further, that by adopting the100d. system Australia would be able to use standard decimal monetary machines sooner than any other system. This is because the necessity to retain a id. minor unit in the 100d. system will go before it would under an alternative system based on £1 or 10s. On a change to the l00d. system the vast majority of prices will be immediately understood by the buying community. I think it is common sense to say that if we introduce a system based on100d. the people will know that the cent is worth1d. and that the basic unit is the equivalent of 8s. 4d.Ill effects have been caused elsewhere. Surely we can learn from the mistakes of other nations and make sure that we do not make those mistakes ourselves.

The committee said further that the main objection to making the present 10s. the basic unit was that there would be an automatic increase in prices. That will happen. I can imagine the growls of the ordinary housewife when paying household bills. If there is anything that holds the possibility of engendering strife in the community and in industry it is the change which the Government proposes. Irrespective of party we should do everything in our power to see that we are not the cause of such strife. I know what will happen. Prices will increase as they have increased elsewhere. ] know what the users of the currency will do. What would you expect them to do?

They will quickly demand the same purchasing power as they have had before, and in the final analysis they have only one method of obtaining that. The ordinary person has only his labour to sell, and he is entitled to get as much for that commodity as he can.

I do not wish industrial trouble to occur. I have had enough such troubles to fix up in the past. I do not wish the community to be placed in the position where costs will rise and workers will have to seek an increase in wages. The strength of the unions will ensure that wages will finally be adjusted, but this will have an effect on the cost structure of the nation. Our experience has been that inflation can seriously affect the economy. We are doing well in the export field to-day, but we would be doing a lot better if the cost structure had been stabilized. I am not blaming any one for what has happened, but if we could have held prices at the level of the early 1950’s we would have been in a far sounder position to-day. We would have been able to maintain our standard of living and compete on world markets. Money is only worth what it will buy; you cannot eat it. Irrespective of which party governs this nation-

Senator Wright:

– The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission determines these matters.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It does, but it is not too keen on the people I am vitally concerned about.

Senator Wright:

– That is the trouble, you will bring politics into this.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not bringing politics into this. It is you who interjected. What do you want me to do - just agree with you? I have agreed with you sometimes, I admit.

What was the main objection to the 8s. 4d. unit given in the report of the Decimal Currency Committee? The committee said that it noted that all statistics, financial records, contracts and bank balances are expressed in pounds and would have to be altered - a most arduous and laborious operation. I do not agree with that. That, to my mind, is ashort-sighted view.The10sunitmightmakefora slightly easier transition, but at what cost? At the cost of a general increase in prices of perhaps 5 per cent., 10 per cent, or - on smaller articles - up to 20 per cent. These increases could in turn trigger off a new wave of inflation. The other objection mentioned by the committee was that, particularly for large amounts, individuals would find it difficult to relate the new currency values to the old. 1 do not agree with that. The hundreds and thousands of new citizens who come to Australia soon know what change they should get. Although the transition might cause some small problems, that, to my mind, is much preferable to the grave risk of commencing - as happened in South Africa - another inflationary boom. The Government changes its mind on many things. I hope that it will have a second look at this matter and examine the situation from the point of view of practical experience. {: #subdebate-13-0-s1 .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation and Acting Treasurer · Western Australia · LP -- The Opposition has taken the opportunity, under the forms of the Senate, to move this motion relating to decimal currency as a matter of urgency. It is, of course, the undeniable right of an opposition to bring up a subject for immediate debate when that subject is, in fact, a matter of urgency affecting the public interest. I do not deny or question that right, but I do permit myself to express some puzzlement as to why to-day; - this Wednesday - the subject of decimal currency should become a matter of urgency. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has already announced that before the session finishes the Government will present to the Parliament a currency bill which will necessarily encompass amuch wider field than can be encompassed in an urgency debate and which will give the Opposition and the Parliament generally the opportunity to debate over that wider field, and in much greater detail, the subject-matter of the present debate. I am puzzled that decimal currency should suddenly become a matter of urgency to the Opposition because I look back, as **Senator. Kennelly** has reminded me' Ghat V-might, to October',' 1958. 'when there was made public the intention of the Government to set up a committee to inquire into decimal currency. That committee was, in fact, set up. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- That would not be original, of course. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- Will you be quiet! The committee was, in fact, set up. It travelled far and wide over Australia. It called evidence from everyone who wanted to make submissions to it. It gave ample opportunity to every member of the community and every organization to give evidence. But it is only to-day that the Opposition, quite suddenly, has decided that it is not in favour of the proposals accepted by the Government, and it is raising the subject as a matter of urgency. I suggest that, looking forward to the introduction of a currency bill in a few weeks' time, and looking back to October, 1958, there is more than a little justification for my puzzlement that on this day the subject of decimal currency should be brought forward as a matter of urgency to be debated not only in the Senate but, I' understand, in both chambers of the Parliament. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Do you not think it is vital? {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- I am not going to answer you. Up to the present this has been a sensible discussion and I want to keep it sensible. I desire to refer to the report itself, because it is a document which is well worthy of study. The report is certainly the most comprehensive thing on this subject which has been produced in Australia for many years. It has been produced by a committee which was comprised of members whose interests were spread throughout the community. The members were not only business and commercial people, but also a woman- a housewife - and a trade union official in the person of **Mr. Henderson.** The committee sat for eighteen months and produced a unanimous report. It is a matter of interest and very pertinent to what we are discussing to add that a committee in South Africa produced the same recommendation as to the size of the currency unit, and since then a New Zealand committee has brought in - in that sense - an identical recommendation. . I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say that he favoured a 100d.: system. I do not know, but I assume that this now represents official Labour policy. If it does, members of the Labour Party are perfectly entitled to that policy, but as a matter of interest, not only was this 10s. major unit recommendation brought in in South Africa and New Zealand, and the 8s. 4d. unit, after full consideration, rejected, but also a committee that sat more recently in the United Kingdom rejected the 8s. 4d. major unit. So it does appear that, in reaching its recommendations, the Decimal Currency Committee was, if I may put it in colloquial terms, in good company, and was supported be recommendations which were made in other countries at or about the same time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that all he could find in the report about the reasons why the committee recommended the 10s. major unit cent currency was in Appendix D, at page 133. With great respect to him, let me say that if he examines the report more closely he will find that the committee gave close and detailed study and attention to five specific systems. From page 27 onward it sets out, on page after page, the advantages and disadvantages of each. I refer honorable senators to that section of the report which, to my mind, represents the crux of the reasons why the 10s. major unit cent currency was recommended by the committee. As I understood the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he was putting to us that all the major prices will be converted straight from' pence to cents. I think that his conclusion is a premature one and that this is not in fact necessary. There are many cases where the pence-cents conversion could involve a saving to the purchaser. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- Oh! {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- If the honorable senator cares to listen, I shall indicate arguments which support that. Prices at present expressed in multiples of 6d. will have exact equivalents in the new system. On the other hand, while it may be convenient for a retailer to convert Id. into a cent, which is 1.2d., or 2d. into two cents, which is 2.4d., the nearest equivalent to Sd. is 4 cents, which is 4.8d., and the nearest equivalent to 4d. is 3 cents, which is 3.6d. I suggest that in many lines, with the intense competition that takes place, this sort of thing will in fact occur. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- I hope that it does. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE: -- I suggest that it will. The report itself makes reference to the possibility of that occuring. I should like to refer to that part of the report, because it is very pertinent to the criticism made by **Senator Kennelly** on the possibility of inflation. I refer to the report at page 43, under the heading " Effect on Price Structure ". Some of this is worth putting into " Hansard " for record purposes, and I propose to read excerpts from it. The committee initially refers to a submission made by the Queensland Government in the form of an estimate of the effect upon the C series retail price index of the various decimal systems, and then states - >An approach was made to the Commonwealth Statistician to have the " C " Series Retail Price Index re-calculated on the basis of a minimum value coin equal to 1.2d. The Statistician pointed out, however, that it was not possible to predict the likely change with any degree of certainty. He went on to say that the question involved more than an arithmetic exercise, and that its answer depended on a number of economic and psychological factors whose effect could not be determined or even estimated within specific limits, but that the over-all effect on prices was not likely to be considerable. This is the view of a completely objective official, the Statistician. His examination, though necessarily truncated for the reasons to which he referred, showed that the inflationary effect, if any, on prices was not likely to be considerable. The report, later, stated - >It has been suggested that adoption of the 10s.- cent decimal system would be inflationary, in the sense that prices without exact equivalents would be raised to the nearest cent above, and not reduced to the next lower. The first thing to be said about the system in this connexion is that prices in shillings or ending in sixpence would not be affected since there are exact cent equivalents for these amounts. No revision would therefore be required for those goods which do not normally include pence (other than six pence) in their prices. 190. A survey carried out for the Committee did not confirm that there was any significant scope for price increases in the retail field. The survey showed that for articles priced at above £5, prices are expressed in even amounts (that is, in shillings or ending in sixpence). There would, therefore, be little or no latitude for increases in such prices. 191. For prices below £5, the survey revealed that clothing, materials and accessories (handbags, costume jewellery and so on) were priced either in even amounts or. to lid. Outside this- field even prices generally prevail, excepting in the very competitive lines, and groceries, where pricing takes all possible forms including, frequently, the halfpenny. 192. The prices of these lines, including groceries, would have to be adjusted to the nearest half-cent, but the competitive factor here is so strong that it would not allow a greater over-all gross profit to be taken. There is, as a result little likelihood of price increases in this field. 193. In the case of clothing and associated articles, the public would definitely benefit, since an article now marked at 15s. lid. would undoubtedly bc marked at 1.59 units, showing a slight reduction. The price ending of lid. is very widelt u-ed in such an extent that in some shoe stores, for example, practically every price ends in I Id. > >In passing, it is worthwhile to recall that the committee had the benefit of evidence from people who have been interested in the retail trade for a long period of years. lt has been suggested that some prices for staples such as bread and milk might be used to effect a price rise against the public. In that connexion, **Mr. Deputy President,** I am very interested to be able to refer the Senate to the tabic appearing at page 45 of the report which deals with prices of bread and milk in all the Stale capital cities of Australia. An analysis of what would happen under the recommended system reveals the following facts: In respect of bread, there would be a buyers gain in two of the five State capitals listed, totalling .4d. A seller's gain would occur in three of the capitals and would total *.Id.* There would be no change in one capital city. In respect of milk, there would be no change in one capital city. There would be a buyer's gain in four of the cities which would total .9d. There would be a seller's gain in only one city and it would total .Id. So, in respect of milk, there is a definite advantage for the buyer, and, in respect of bread, there is a smaller disadvantage to the buyer. The table suggests that, as was the official experience in South Africa, no increase in the overall cost of living will result from the change to this system. I am perfectly sure that **Senator Kennelly** would be able to pick out one item, or a series of items, and say that in respect of these prices will increase. But our official advice on the experience in South Africa is that there has been no increase in the cost of living. In view of the interest in the table to which 1 have referred, with the concurrence of honorable senators, I incorporate it in " Hansard ". > >There is another aspect of this matter which 1 believe is worthy of particular notice. Paragraph 239 of the report reads as follows: - >An official conversion table should, however, be included in the decimalization legislation as an indication of the Government's view on the correct equivalent amounts in the new currency of all £ s. d. amounts from one penny to one shilling. The table suggested by the Committee for this purpose is set out hereunder, and shows the effects of the table from the respective viewpoints of buyers and sellers. An examination of that table, **Mr. Deputy President,** shows that, for amounts up to ls., which are the amounts in which we are particularly interested in a study of this particular aspect of the problem, the seller's gain and the buyer's gain equate at 1.8d. These facts, I suggest, lead to the conclusion which was reached by the committee that this particular system which was suggested is superior to all others that were examined. It is my view that the committee, having examined the whole problem as completely and comprehensively and objectively as it did, reached the right conclusion when it made this recommendation to the Government. In that respect, it is interesting to note the committee's own comment on the public reaction to the proposal. The committee's report, reading from paragraph 220, is as follows: - 220. The Committee received evidence from a wide variety of individuals and groups. Among individuals who either wrote to the Committee or presented oral evidence before it, a wider range of decimal systems wes suggested than came from groups which the Committee approached for their views. In both cases, however, the two systems which predominated were those based upon the £-cent and 10s.-cent decimal systems. 221. Of individuals who recommended specific decimal systems some 18 per cent, preferred the £-cent (usually with a h:;If-cent coin) and 27 per cent, preferred the lOs.-cent system (again, in some cases with a half-cent coin). The 8s. 4d.cent system was recommended by IS per cent, and the £-mil system by 9 per cent. The remaining 31 per cent, put forward other decimal systems (some of which are referred to in paragraph 131), combinations of these, or suggestions for mixed decimal and non-decimal systems. I suggest that the following statement relates to an important aspect - 222. In evidence received from organizations or associations, the 10s. -cent system was much more predominant, being preferred by some S3 per cent, of those who proposed a specific system. The £-cent was recommended by only 17 per cent., although it must be pointed out that this included some influential groups in the community (including the leading trading banks), while the 8s. 4d.-cent system attracted the support of 8 per cent, and the £-mil that of 3 per cent. I invite particular attention to the fact that the 8s. 4d.-cent system attracted the support of only 8 per cent. The report continues - 223. It should also be said that most of the supporters of the £-cent or £-cent-fraction systems indicated that they would accept the lOs.-cent system as an alternative. 224. On the score of opinions submitted to the Committee, therefore, the 10s.-cent system would appear to be the most widely acceptable decimal system. As I said earlier, **Senator Kennelly** seemed to indicate that the Labour Party's policy henceforth would favour the 10Od system. T suggest that that system, as examined by the committee, throws up some quite remarkable disadvantages. First, it requires a conversion ratio of 2.4 : 1 . which is not easy to apply. While the major unit probably would provide ready associability for small values - 8d. would become 8 cents and 2s. lOd. or 34d. would become 34 cents - it would become very cumbersome for medium or large amounts. Whilst most of us know our twelve times table for a fair way along the scale, the average housewife whom **Senator Kennelly** mentioned would have to go through mental gymnastics to work out that 17s. 9d. was the same as 213d. and therefore equivalent to 2 dollars 13 cents. For larger amounts the association of values would be even more difficult. An amount of £14, which would become 28 dollars under the 10s. system, would be 33 dollars 60 cents under the 8s. 4d.-cent. unit. Apart from Id., which would become 1 cent, all existing coins would have to be replaced immediately, as it would be unthinkable for a decimal system to have coins which were the equivalent of 3 cents, 6 cents, 12 cents and 24 cents. Even under the 1.0s. system, an enormous minting programme must be achieved before D-day; but the introduction of the 8s. 4d.-cent. unit would almost inevitably mean the postponement of D-day until enough 5 cent. 10 cent and 20 cent coins, equivalent to 5d., lOd. and ls. 8d., had been minted. As I said at the beginning, the committee did a magnificent job when it examined the proposals which were referred to it by the Government, lt gave close and deep consideration to all the systems that it could possibly encompass. In its report it has examined five systems in detail. It submitted recommendations which have been accepted by the Government and which will formally see the light of day when the currency bill is introduced. {: #subdebate-13-0-s2 .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- Unfortunately, in quarter of an hour one cannot adequately traverse a subject of such importance. I want to reply, first, to some matters that have been raised by the Acting Treasurer **(Senator Paltridge).** He asked why this matter had been raised by Opposition senators to-day. It had been raised for the very good reason which he himself has given - that legislation is imminent. We wish to render a proper service to the Australian community by inviting the Government to consider some aspects of our own decimal currency report to which I think it has not given full consideration. We are concerned about prices. It will be too late to raise this issue after the Government has determined the shape of its legislation. We believe we are serving a really national purpose in directing attention to the matters that **Senator Kennelly** has opened up. The Minister said that the report of the Decimal Currency Committee was a unanimous one, and that the recommendation was the same as that put forward in South Africa. South Africa's position is entirely different from ours. South Africa has even got down to the farthing and, for its own reasons, has sought to get away from sterling. We are not attempting to get away from sterling. There will be no immediate relation between sterling and the basic unit of 10s. which has been selected by the Government on the recommendation of the committee; but there would be a relation with a basic unit of 8s. 4d., because three dollars each worth 8s. 4d. would be the equivalent of £1 sterling or 25s. in our currency. The Minister was wrong when he referred, I think, to the United Kingdom committee having followed something that was done here. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- No, to our rejection of 8s. 4d. unit. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- It rejected what this Government proposes to accept - the 10s. -100 cent system. It is stated in the report that it would be convenient for domestic purposes, but decided upon the £1-100 cent system because of the international damage which otherwise would be done to the United Kingdom currency. I point out that the United Kingdom has rejected the very thing which this Government is adopting. In the international aspect, it is quite clear that a dollar worth 8s. 4d. would dovetail in with that currency very much better than will a dollar that is worth 10s. It is quite true that South. Africa, for reasons it thought proper in the existing political circumstances, deliberately sought a break with sterling. That is what you get when you adopt a dollar unit of 10s. From the viewpoint of international currency, let me point out how proximate an Australian dollar worth 8s. 4d. would be to the dollar in America, with which we do very great trade. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- At present. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Well, at present. The value of the American dollar varies from 8s. 9d. to 9s. Let me say in reply to **Senator Henty** that nobody can see right into the future in relation t6 any particular matter. Let us take the position as it is to-day. Great Britain is rejecting the scheme that is being adopted here. The decimal currency committee in the United Kingdom has only just filed its report, and I understand that the Government has not yet made any decision upon it. But the United Kingdom committee made its recommendation after studying what has happened in New Zealand, after noting the decision that has been made by Australia and after studying what has happened in South Africa. The Minister was good enough to quote from the report of the Decimal Currency Committee at page 43, but he failed to stress a particular paragraph on that page. He said that the Commonwealth Statistician had pointed out that it was not possible to predict the likely change in the price structure with any degree of certainty. We start with that proposition, but paragraph 186 of the report reads - >The only pure two-place decimal system which will eliminate all need for price adjustment would be one based upon the halfpenny, with a major unit of 4s. 2d. Given the inclusion of a halfcent, the 8s. 4d.-cent system would give similar advantages on this score . . . That would be a good system to eliminate price advantages. It is well to keep that in mind. The Minister quoted from page 54 of the report in support of his argument. But I think he made a very unhappy choice in including that table and in pointing out as the table does, that 4d. would be equivalent to 3 cents under the conversion rate and equal to the present 3.6d. There would be a buyer's gain of .4d. Let us see what the -Government did in this regard.. It made a charge of '4d. for the use of public telephones. But it did' hot do as this table suggests and then make an adjustment to 3 cents; it went to 5. cents and got the equivalent of 6d. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- 0h {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- That is quite true. That utterly negatives the Minister's argument. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- Oh, no! {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- Let me continue. The conversion table shows that 4d. would become 3 cents. The true equivalent would be 3.6d., which would mean a buyer's gain of .4d. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- Have a look at the twopence. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- This is what your Government has adopted. A sober, responsible government! Did it make the value 3 cents? No, it made it 5 cents - the equivalent of 6d. - and the Commonwealth Statistician is completely right when he says that you cannot predict with accuracy in this matter because there are economic and psychological factors. When you see greed like that from a responsible government what do you expect from the traders? Are they going to go down the line, or follow the Government's example and go up? It is farcical to argue from a table like that, in the light of the Government's own performance. We have looked at the psychological factors in this situation. We agree with the statistician that they are important. First, we are invited, on the recommendation of this committee, to take the great savings on trust. In paragraph 2 of its recommendations the Decimal Currency Committee stated - lt is impossible to assess in money terms the savings which would result, but the Committee has no doubt that the savings in time and effort would outweigh the cost and inconvenience of the change, and has included estimates of savings in particular areas. So we are asked to take the decimal currency on trust as making savings. Let us say we are prepared to do that. Who is to bear the cost of the change-over in all the machines under this scheme? The taxpayer! It will cost him £30,000,000 - not to reimburse ordinary persons, but to reimburse the big business people with all the machines. We will find, when we come to the smaller items - the goods of small price that are sold in millions - that that is where there will be a repetition of what the Government has done with public telephones. There will be no downward tendency; there will only be a rise. Let me point to the examples referred to by **Senator Kennelly** - the newspapers. Take a mere effective increase of a halfpenny in the price of a newspaper with a daily circulation of 500,000, of which we have quite a number in Australia. The extra cost does not mean very much to the individual for one newspaper, but it means an extra £1,000 a day profit to the newspaper proprietor. Apply that to- the whole system of chain stores - where again the tendency will be to follow the Government's action in increasing the charge for public telephone calls from 4d. to 6d. - and extend it to all the little services. That is exactly what we will find, and the great companies owning chain stores will profit. The share market itself shows to-day that shrewd investors in the community are anticipating the effect of the advent of the decimal currency and are buying up, throughout Australia, stock in concerns that will benefit from the change to the new currency. They know perfectly will - as the Government knows - that the Commonwealth has no control over prices. That is all the more reason why the Government should have selected as a basis of the currency in this new system the only unit that will prevent an increase of prices - as is stated by the Government's own committee in its report. I have already quoted from the relevant paragraph, but I want also to refer to page 34 of the report where it deals with the basic unit of 8s. 4d., consisting of 100 cents, with the possibility of a half-cent. **Senator Kennelly** has referred to this. 1 invite the Minister for Civil Aviation to look at this unanimous report dealing with the 8s. 4d.-cent system at paragraph 1 54 - >From the point of view of the needs of the community this system is conspicuous for the fact that, providing that a half-cent is circulated, it is the only one which need involve no change in values in pricing. The only one! {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- Of course, thatworks both ways - an increase or a: decrease. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKENNA: -- One would be. very naive to think that the retailer, for example, is going to put his prices down when he can put them up.' One would be naive indeed to think that in a situation where the new small unit - the 1 cent - is worth 1.2d., industry in all its processes is not going to take advantage of the fact that what was formerly Id. will now bc 1 .2d. There will be a cumulative effect down the whole range of business activity from the manufacturer to the wholesaler and on to the retailer. There is grave danger when the Government does not direct its mind to ensuring that the change to decimal-- currency' will not '-mean' 'huge profits for the big concerns dealing with little items of everyday use. This trend will grievously affect people in the pensioner class, and the families. It is they who will suffer - the little people who buy the little things like food items, vegetables and newspapers and pay tram fares and train fares. The great argument of this committee is that there will be a period of transition. It is to be made easy. I say quite frankly that I do not care how difficult the transition is or, within reason, what the transition costs. Whatever those factors may be they will be temporary, whether they last a year or two years; but once the rise in prices starts it cannot be held. Nobody should know that better than this Government. We raised this matter not only because legislation is imminent but also because we know the record of this Government in letting inflation ride. We know that it has no power over prices. Here is an opportunity to prevent a swelling in prices, but the Government will not take it. We feel that it is our clear duty at this stage to warn the Government where it is heading. There are factors in the community which could easily lead to an inflationary spiral in the not distant future. We feel that with the legislation coming forward there is no more opportune time to do this than the present, instead of waiting for the event to come to pass. I should like to refer in some detail to the appendix to the report dealing with the New Zealand position. I have never seen so much special pleading for tiding people over a temporary transition period. The arguments are reduced to stupidity in some cases, in my opinion. It is claimed, for example-- The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKellar).** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s3 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- I rise to oppose the motion that has been moved by **Senator Kennelly,** for the simple reason that I do not believe that the Opposition has studied the document submitted to the Government by the Decimal Currency Committee whose recommendations have been adopted. In 1958, the Government appointed this committee, consisting of seven members. The com mittee met about 34 times and consulted more than 200 organizations and more than 150 individuals throughout the Commonwealth. At the first meeting of the committee it was resolved that persons throughout Australia should be invited to appear before the committee. The committee decided to advertise to that effect so that everybody in Australia could come forward with evidence, whether they were organizations or individuals, and so place their views before the committee. At the back of the committee's report there is a list of the individuals and organizations from which the committee took evidence. More than 200 organizations and more than 150 individuals were sufficiently interested in the proposal to adopt a system of decimal currency to give evidence to the committee. **Senator McKenna** stated that it was noteworthy that the committee which made recommendations to the United Kingdom Government had come down in favour of the 20s.-cent system. I point out to the honorable senator that of the six members of that committee, four were in favour of the 20s.-cent system and two were in favour of the10s.-cent system, but none was in favour of the 8s. 4d.-cent system which the Opposition in this Parliament is advocating. I do not believe that many members of the Opposition have fully examined the proposal. It is true that the adoption of the 8s. 4d.-cent system would not involve variation in respect of the small coins, but as the Decimal Currency Committee has stated, we have to remember that it will take up to three years for conversion to the new system. The committee stated that it would take two years to introduce the system and a further period of up to three years for conversion. It recommended that during this time the present coins be used. If the 8s. 4d.-cent system were adopted it would be found that, during the conversion period, people who went to shops to purchase articles would not be able readily to calculate or to convert cents to pennies. The committee has pointed out that while it would be easy to convert coins of small denomination, few persons indeed could convert quickly one dollar 74 units to 14s. 6d., or vice versa. The committee stated that in the conversion of the major unit and of smaller amounts, the 8s. 4d.cent system would be at a serious disadvantage compared with the10s.-cent system or even the 20s.-cent system. We can imagine the difficulty which would be encountered by a bank or business house in having readily available, under the 8s. 4d.-cent system advocated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, quantities of small coins equivalent to our present 3d., 6d. and1s. The Decimal Currency Committee has stated at page 35 of its report - >Some advocates of this system-- That is, the 8s. 4d.-cent system - argue that all the existing coins (and notes) could continue in use after its introduction. They base their case, presumably, upon the fact that all decimal values have exact equivalents in pence. This view is, however, an over-simplification which ignores the many practical problems that would arise in the absence of decimal denominations, quite apart from the incongruous nature of a decimal system with denominations of 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 cents. When we speak of1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 cents we are speaking of the equivalents1d., 3d., 6d.,1s. and 2s., but we are moving away from that system. The report continues - >If the difficulty of " making up " change, from the viewpoint of shop assistants, is considered, the impracticability of continuing to use existing coins (excepting the penny and halfpenny) becomes apparent. The practice is to make up change to the next highest shilling, and then to go on until the amount tendered is reached. This simply could not be done for the 8s. 4d. unit, or most multiples of it, with the existing coins. Similarly, since 8s. 4d. is an exact multiple of only the penny and halfpenny, among existing coins, it would be impossible for banks to make up packets of threepences, sixpences, shillings and florins to the value of the new major unit, or most multiples of it. It would therefore be necessary to replace all coins excepting the penny and halfpenny as from the changeover date, a task which would be quite beyond the capacity of the presentMints unless over a period of several years.It must also be pointed out that, in view of the evidence (referred to in paragraph 246) regarding the unpopularity of the penny as a coin in many quarters, it may even be necessary to replace the penny itself at some future time. It is interesting to note that the Government of South Africa has adopted the system which the Australian Government proposes to adopt, and that the Government of New Zealand also proposes to adopt it. **Senator McKenna** stated that if we were to adopt the8s. 4d.-cent system it would be closer to the American system. At the present moment the American dollar is worth, I think about 9s. 2d. A unit equivalent to 8s. 4d. therefore would be closer to the value of the American dollar than would a unit worth 10s., but I think it would be rather novel for Australia to have a system of currency which included a dollar with the highest value in the world. It would be nice to begin the system with our coins having a greater value than those of other decimal currency coins. For that reason, the 120 cent system that we propose to adopt is to be commended. **Senator Kennelly** suggested there would be a large degree of inflation if we were to adopt the 10s. -cent system. He referred to various percentage increases ranging from 20 per cent. in the case of articles which now cost id. and which will cost one cent under the new system, to articles which now cost 6d. and in which there will be no increase when they cost five cents. The Decimal Currency Committee was not of the opinion that there would be any degree of inflation, nor do I believe there will be. The committee considered this aspect thoroughly. It examined the likely effects on prices of bread and milk throughout the capital cities of Australia and came to the conclusion that there would be very little variation. It sets out in a table what the price of bread, for instance, would be under the10s.-cent system. The table shows that a loaf of bread which cost 16.5d. in Sydney in 1960 would cost 14 cents under the new system, so that there would be a seller's gain of 0.3 per cent. In two of the six capital cities the purchasers of bread would gain 2d. and in three of the others sellers would gain . 3d., 1d. and . 3d. respectively. So the total buyers' gain would be . 4d., and the total sellers' gain . 7d. Again, in four of the six capital cities purchasers of milk would gain . 2d., . 3d., . 2d. and . 2d. respectively and in one other the seller would gain1d. The total buyers' gain would be 9d. and the sellers' gain 1d. Over all, therefore, the sellers' gain for bread throughout Australia would be . 3d. and the buyers' gain for milk would be 8d. The committee found that for articles of higher value, the prices were expressed in pounds, shillings and sixpences, and pence were seldom included. A price might be shown as £51s. 6d. or £51s., but very rarely with pence. The sum of1s. 6d. has as its equivalent 15 cents so there would be no variation: there would be no percentage gain or loss at all in goods with a price stated at ls. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. The report continues - >For prices below £5, the survey revealed that clothing, materials and accessories (handbags, costume jewellery and so on) were priced either in even amounts or to lid. Outside this field even prices generally prevail, excepting in the very competitive lines, and groceries, where pricing takes all possible forms including, frequently, the halfpenny. The report then gives an example of an article sold at 15s. lid. and states that it would undoubtedly be marked at 1.59 units, which would be a gain to the purchaser. I would say that overall there would not be a great degree of inflation. The Opposition is advocating that the basic unit in the proposed decimal currency should not be limited to ohe cent. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s4 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania **.- Senator Scott** has more or less reiterated the case advanced by the Acting Treasurer **(Senator Paltridge),** who expressed puzzlement that the Opposition should raise the subject of decimal currency as a matter of urgency. I remind the Senate of the subject that we are now debating. It is - >The disadvantages and inequities of making ten shillings (10s.) the basic unit in the proposed decimal currency and of limiting the minima] unit to one cent. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber feel that before the Government brings down legislation to introduce a basic unit of 10s., the people of Australia, who are the ones who will be. most affected, should be made aware of the situation as it actually exists. They should be informed of the experiences in South Africa with the change-over to the rand and cent, as those units of currency are called. I should like to say how pleased I am that we have chosen dollar as the name for our unit and that we have got away from the last century and the old Flintstone ideas that seem to permeate the minds of the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** and some members of his Cabinet. At times they seem to think that they must always live in the past, rather than look into the future. With the dollar we will have a unit that is universally understood, and that will be to our advantage. **Senator Scott** mentioned that a very good committee investigated the adoption of decimal currency in Australia. I agree that members of the committee that investigated this subject were conscientious and made comprehensive inquiries. That committee stated in its report that there were disadvantages in adopting 10s. as the basic unit, and went into those disadvantages in some detail. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- The committee did not recommend 8s. 4d. as the value of the basic unit. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- No, but I should think it was for the sake of simplicity that the committee recommended a 10s. unit. It is all very fine to have simplicity, but we should not have simplicity at the expense of a certain section of the community. The process of changing over to the new currency will hit the ordinary working man hardest of all. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- To what extent? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- To the extent that there will be a general price increase of between 6 per cent, and 10 per cent., particularly in certain basic commodities and services. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Where do you get that from? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- That is stated in the report. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- At what page? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- At page 43, for instance. **Senator Paltridge** quoted part of the section relating to the effect on price structure. At that page the report states - >A disadvantage relating to the lOs.-cent system is that the new cent is 20 per cent higher in value than the penny. Some revision of prices which involve pence (other than six pence) would be inevitable. It has been pointed out that in South Africa the smallest unit is a half cent. However, under the system proposed for Australia, the smallest unit would be 1 cent. A conversion from id. to I cent, will involve a gain of 140 per cent. **Senator Kennelly** mentioned that on a conversion of Id. to 1 cent an increase of 20 per cent, would be involved; a conversion of 2d. to 2 cents would mean a 20 per cent, increase; a conversion1 of , 3d. to 3 cents would involve an increase of 20 per cent.; and the same percentage increase would be involved with the conversion of 4d. and 5d. On the conversion to decimal currency we must accept the precedent that has /already been established by the Postmaster-General's Department, which is that rather than decrease a charge, the new amount will be the nearest unit above. Instead of the 4d. telephone call, which we have enjoyed - we have not really enjoyed it; we have had to pay it - we have a charge of 6d. The charge for telephone calls increased by 100 per cent, from 2d. to 4d., but now it is increased to 6d which will be the equivalent of 5 cents with the change-over. We can expect the same thing to happen in respect of other charges. Tn the change-over to decimal currency the Government, the merchants and manufacturers stand to gain most. It is the man in the street who will be hit in the hip pocket; he is the one who will have to pay much more than his correct proportion. It might be asked what the Government will gain. The Government proposes to call in the coinage. Silver coins now in use are made of an alloy containing 50 per cent, silver, 40 per cent, copper, 5 per cent, zinc and 5 per cent, nickel. The value of the metal in the coins now in circulation is between £30,000,000 and £35,000,000. Those coins will be replaced by coins made of a cupro-nickel composition and will cost the equivalent of £20,000,000. From that it can be seen that the Government stands to make a very handsome profit in the change-over. There are other factors that can bc taken Into consideration, such as the prices that the public will have to pay. The change-over will affect the price quoted for wool. The Government is vitally concerned at the moment about the future of wool auctions. In the fractional bidding which takes place at these auctions, and which is supposed to be of such an advantage, with our smallest unit being worth 1.2d. the bids will be in cents instead of in farthings and halfpennies as they are to-day. There will be anomalies where the bidder will come down one unit whereas the man in the street will be asked to pay to the unit above. . . I should like to .refer to the experience of South Africa. The South African publica tion " Manufacturer ", of October, 1960, in an article on the change-over in South Africa, said - >Nevertheless, my Board has made it known to all revenue raising agencies, as well as the business world, that the public interest demands that they should not be disregarded and that the general public should not be made to suffer financially, merely as a result of the introduction of a decimal coinage system. That is why the Opposition has raised this matter. Legislation is shortly to be brought into this Parliament which will disregard this very important factor of the cost of commodities. The article continues - >In this connection I am pleased to state, the Union Government- That is the Government of South Africa - set a fine example in the recent substitution of cents for pence in the Stamp Duties and Fees Further Amendment Act, which was passed during the last session of Parliament, for application as from D-Day. That is, the day of the introduction of decimal coinage. The article continues - >For justifiable reasons, one penny was replaced by one cent. But as this would automatically result in a 20 per cent, increase in the proceeds of that duty,- That is the point - a 20 per cent, increase in the proceeds of that duty! - the other duties were adjusted as follows, with the object of neutralising this increased impost upon the public: - 2 pence, equivalent to 1) cent, was reduced to 11 cent. 3 pence, equivalent to 21 cent, was reduced to 2 cent. 7 pence, equivalent to 5) cent, was reduced to 5 cent. 9 pence, equivalent to 7i cent, was reduced to 7 cent. The South African Government has come down one unit, but **Senator Henty** and other members of the Cabinet here know that the general public, who have to pay the piper, will not get the advantage from the change. Speaking of South Africa, **Senator Scott** said that conversion tables will be made available. I have here an extract from an article dealing with a South African cartoon character called " Decimal Dan ". The article says that Decimal Dan has done more to solve one of South Africa's biggest economic headaches than all the statisticians and accountants.- lumped together. It- indicates that a song about Decimal Dan reached the top ten in the hit parade. One of the verses is - >Decimal Dan, the Rand cent man > >Gives you cents for pennies whenever he can. > >Six for seven pence and seven for eight > >And seven and a half for ninepence. > >Notes and silver are worth the same, > >Remember, it's just a change in the name. We vary that in the conversion here. Instead of doing what the PostmasterGeneral's Department has done, and anticipating the change by increasing a charge to the nearest unit above, the South African Government legislated to bring charges down in order to give the public a fair go. That is what the Opposition is asking the Government to bear in mind in this very important matter. 1 wish to refer to another important article in support of the Opposition's contention that there are inequalities and inequities in this proposal that will affect people in the lower income group. Following the announcement by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** of the names and denominations of our new decimal currency " Jobson's Investment Digest " wrote that the Treasurer - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . has thrown a smokescreen over some of the really important issues raised. From the point of view of investors, some significant factors have emerged in the likely effects of the change-over on certain industries and companies. The fact that the one-cent coin will have an effective value of 1.2d. will have a bearing on prices of a number of smaller-priced articles. To give a commonplace example, take the case of the humble box of matches. Now selling for 2d. the logical price in decimal coinage will be 2 cents - an effective increase of 0.4d. or 20 per cent, on the present figure. A pint of milk, now selling in Sydney for Hid. will no doubt be priced at 10 cents - a rise of id. Now consider the effect on the price of newspapers. The journal continues - >A newspaper now selling for Sd. would either have to become S cents, (equivalent to 6d.) or 4 cents (equivalent to 4.?d.). It is not hard to imagine which level will be chosen and when one considers that daily sales of 300,000 are commonplace (Melbourne's 3d. Sun sells 386,000) the effects on revenue will be enormous. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- It will be £1,000 a day. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- I have worked it out that at 4d. the value of sales could increase by from £9,766 to £14,600 a day. That gives an idea of what effect an increase from 4d. to 6d. in price could have on the revenue of newspaper concerns. The journal also states - >Leading Brisbane broker, Corrie & Co., was prompted to publish a comprehensive review of the major newspaper stocks partly because of the impact that decimal currency will have. Foodstuffs were also reviewed and the journal comments - >The fact that many grocery prices involve halfpennies which will become obsolete means that some effective price increases will be inevitable. The Government is ostensibly very concerned about the price-cost structure. It says it is concerned, but as long as things suit its friends and supporters it will remain silent. The journal continues - >Bread, milk, meat, dairy products and vegetables must undergo minor price adjustments. However,- the fact that bulk buying has become such a feature of the industry rather suggests that it is the retail side which will benefit most. For this reason, the big variety chains of Woolworths and G. J. Coles, with their millions of small transactions, appear particularly well placed. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin).** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s5 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia -- I rise to oppose the claims of the Opposition this afternoon. Like some of my colleagues I am rather puzzled why the Opposition should treat this subject as a matter of urgency. On the other hand, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words because I have been very interested in the whole question of decimal currency. In August, 1960, there was presented to the Government - and, of course, to the Parliament - the report of the Decimal Currency Committee. I have been amazed at the thoroughness with which the committee went to work. In order to give full consideration and arrive at a balanced judgment on this matter, especially in the light of some of the points put forward by the Opposition, one should consider some of the work done by this committee. As has been stated, the committee met on 24 occasions. It advertised extensively its desire to obtain the views of those interested and it moved from place to place throughout Australia, sitting at Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Launceston and Hobart. The committee made some very firm recommendations. ^ On '.' (' « page six of its report the committee came down entirely on the side of the significant savings that would result if a system of decimal currency were adopted. It had no doubt that the savings in time and effort would out-weigh the cost and inconvenience of the change. After examining various decimal systems, the committee recommended the introduction of the 10s.-cent system as the most appropriate for Australia. What is more important - the Senate should bear this in mind - is that it deliberately negatived the suggestion being put forward by the Opposition. The committee stated - in relation to the system it recommended - >This system has many advantages over the only others considered practicable, the £-cent-fraction and the 8s. 4d.-cent systems. The Senate should not lose sight of the fact that these are very firm recommendations, reached unanimously by the committee after examination of witnesses in all parts of Australia. The report shows what the public thought of the idea. After all, when a government introduces a matter to a parliament, it is most prudent for the parliament to get the best estimate it can get of public reaction. Public opinion is set out very clearly on page 50 of the report. The committee dealt in some cases with individuals and in some cases with organizations. Paragraph 221 states - >Of individuals who recommended specific decimal systems some 18 per cent. preferred the £-cent (usually with a half-cent coin) and 27 per cent. preferred the10s.-cent system (again, in some cases with a half-cent coin). The 8s. 4d.-cent system was recommended by 15 per cent. . . . Therefore, of the three systems the system recommended by the Opposition came third. Amongst organizations or associations preference for the10s.-cent system which the Government has advocated was much more predominant. It was preferred by 53 per cent. of those who proposed a specific system. The £-cent system was recommended by only 17 per cent., while the 8s. 4d.-cent system received the support of only 8 per cent. I repeat that 53 per cent. of the organizations which had given this matter specific study recommended the system favoured by the Government and only 8 per cent. recommended the system proposed by the Opposition. This is quite important for the Senate to bear in mind. In both sections of public interest, that of the individual and that of the association, the system advocated by the Opposition comes a bad third. Paragraph 223 states - >It should also be said that most of the supporters of the £-cent or £-cent-fraction systems indicated that they would accept the10s.-cent system as an alternative. So, treating this as an electoral matter, counting the preferences of those eliminated, the system advocated by the Government is by far preferred. The committee logically concluded, on the score of opinions submitted to it, that the10s.-cent system was the most widely acceptable decimal system. That clearly shows what the man in the street and the organization that has studied this matter over the years think about decimal currency. The Opposition, flying in the face of such public opinion, is very unwise to pursue its thinking further. It is still more unwise because what it says is not borne out by the facts. The Opposition made great play of the suggestion that inflation would rear its head again. **Senator Kennelly** was quite generous when he admitted that prices and costs had steadied very considerably over the last few years. The evidence from South Africa does not bear out the Opposition's fears. I understand that in South Africa - this information is passed on to me from Treasury sources - there has been no significant change in the overall cost of living as a result of the introduction of the decimal system based on the10s.-unit. The committee has recommended that, as in South Africa, the id. be retained for a year or so. It suggests that no more halfpennies be minted but that those in existence be still used. In the transition period, I believe, the use of those coins will overcome quite a number of the fears of the Opposition. Earlier speakers on the Government side have referred to the table at page 45 of the report which goes right to the hub of the matter. It shows the effect on the prices of bread and milk, as at 1st luly, 1960, of conversion to decimal currency. This is a table presented in the report, as opposed to the fears, guesses and calculations of some Opposition speakers. A count was taken in all the capital cities of the Commonwealth and it was found that bread buyers would gain in Perth and Hobart and that their total gain would be 4d. Sellers - that is, bakers - would gain in Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide and their total gain would be .7d., and there would be no difference in Melbourne. Coming to milk, another commodity in great use - I find that buyers would gain in Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart, and their total gain would be .9d. The seller would gain only in Melbourne, the total gain being .Id., and there would be no change in Brisbane. So on these two items, bread and milk, considering just the currency change and not the effect of competition, there would be an overall gain for the buyers. I put it to the Senate that in relation to other items, particularly in the grocery line, there is a very good chance that with the intense competition now raging in the supermarket trade the variations resulting from the change in currency would be averaged out. The figures that I have *cited* wilh regard to bread and milk show that prices will nearly average out in favour of the buyer and. as a result of competition in other small items, 1 would say that prices generally will average out pretty well. But the important point to remember in considering the report is the overall saving to the community. The saving to the community in clerical work, in accounting and in calculations generally will tend to reduce prices overall. It is interesting to observe that countries such as South Africa which have adopted decimal currency in recent years have adopted the system that we propose to adopt. Although the committee which inquired into decimal currency in the United Kingdom did not recommend the lOs.-cent system - it recommended the 20s.-cent system - the committee rejected the 8s. 4d.-cent system. The fact that the system we propose to adopt was recommended in New Zealand and the fact of its actual adoption by South Africa clearly indicate that our ideas conform with the enlightened ideas of those *countries.* It is important to note that these countries rejected the 8s. 4d.cent system because of the increased difficulty and confusion that would result. Consequently, I rise to commend the remarks made earlier by Government supporters and to say that- my vote will go against the Opposition's motion. {: #subdebate-13-0-s6 .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN:
Victoria .- The urgency motion which the Senate is considering raises questions which are not merely technical or academic, but which go very much to the heart of the economic well-being of the community. It seems to me that the way in which the Government has attempted to meet the Opposition's case betrays a lamentable lack of understanding of the purpose for which a decimal system is to be introduced. Obviously, the case for the introduction of a decimal system rests upon arguments of convenience and practicality. To consider it at the technical level, for the moment, it is perfectly obvious that, among those who will have to do the conversion in the banks and other financial institutions and *among* the statisticians and the economists, there will be no difficulty whatever in making whatever calculations are necessary to get the required sum at the end of the conversion. But the ordinary person in the community - the person on a fixed income, the pensioner, the wage-earner, the person with a large family of dependants who makes a very large number of small purchases in the course of a week or a month - will test the wisdom of the introduction of any system of decimal currency by this simple question: Will it cost him more? He will also ask whether it will again start the inflationary spiral- to the detriment of the community's welfare. That is really the point at issue in this debate. The Opposition asks: What is the point in introducing a system in a way which will inevitably cause inflation to the disadvantage of those who make purchases of productsin the lower price bracket? A good deal has been said by my colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna), Senator Kennelly,** and **Senator O'Byrne** concerning particular items which will cost the consumer more as a result of conversion. It is easy to say that if you want to convert 2d., being the price of a box of matches, you can convert it either to 2 cents or something less than 2 cents - to be exact. 1.67 cents. Nobody can convince me that the retailer or the manufacturer will be content to take less for his products if there is any choice between putting his prices .up a little and bringing them .down a little. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- You have never been in a supermarket or you would not say that. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- It is the supersupermarkets that will make hundreds of thousands of pounds profit out of this because the'y have a huge turnover covering millions of transactions involving pennies, threepences, half-pennies and sixpences. Let not the Minister for Customs and Excise forget that an increase of a halfpenny on a price of 4d. is a much higher percentage increase than an increase of a half-penny on £3 19s. lid. It is the people who make millions of purchases from the chain stores and supermarkets who stand to lose and the chain stores of the Coles and Woolworths variety which stand to gain. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- They are the ones whose prices will go down. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I remain to be convinced of that. I think the argument that competition will take care of the changeover by preventing an upward adjustment of prices is either naive or disingenuous. I do not believe this will happen. That argument overlooks the simple fact that many of the penny prices which loom large in the cost of living indexes are not significantly affected by competition. They are fixed prices. The fourpenny lifesaver in its many varieties - the candy with the hole in the middle - is an interesting example. If the price were converted from 4d. to 4 cents it would then be the equivalent of 4.8d. If the price were converted to 3 cents it would, in effect, drop to 3.6d.. Is somebody going to tell me -that the price of lifesavers, which are sold - in their hundreds of thousands, will drop to 3.6d.? Is somebody going to tell me that the price of beer will be reduced to the nearest cent below the present price instead of being increased to the nearest cent above it? Have we ever heard of the price of beer being reduced by id. a glass? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Costs will go down. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I remain entirely unconvinced about that. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- That is the South African experience. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -I ask the Minister not to continue to interrupt. Had he listened to **Senator Kennelly** presenting the case on behalf of the Opposition he would have heard a detailed recitation of scores of instances in which the price structure rose in the lower price ranges immediately after the introduction of decimal currency in South Africa. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- If you examined the position a year afterwards you would find that prices fell. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- You will have an opportunity to talk about that later if you wish. So far, what **Senator Kennelly** told the Senate is uncontradicted. The experience of a person of some sophistication and wisdom from whom he got his information showed that a tremendous burden was thrown on the poorer person in South Africa - the coloured man on the lowest standard of living - immediately after the introduction of decimal currency. Neither the person on a fixed income in Australia nor the person in receipt of a modest salary will contemplate the proposed conversion with equanimity. Let us consider a number of examples. Let us consider a typical family budget, stretching over a week, and work out the number of distinct individual purchases made. There would be so many pints of milk - say three pints a day or 21 pints a week. There would be so many fares to be paid by two or three people travelling twice a day by tram or train. There would be one or two newspapers a day. There would be cigarettes or tobacco, several items of green groceries, groceries in their dozens, petrol, rent and telephone calls. {: .speaker-KTN} ##### Senator McKenna: -- And bread. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I shall come to bread, because there has been a serious mis-statement of the situation. The report of the Decimal Currency Committee deals with milk and bread at pages 44 and 45. If we take food, clothing, rent, bread, fares and ancillary items, I venture to suggest that honorable senators will quickly findthat the average number of purchases per week by a family is rather more than 150. If you lose a halfpenny on each of those purchases, you would lose 6s. 3d. or 6s. 6d. a week, if you accept a sum of 6s. for the sake of simplicity, that would amount to £15 12s. a year for each wage earner. As at December, 1962, there were 3,143,100 people in Australia in receipt of wages and salaries. So altogether on this assumption it would amount to the colossal sum of more than £50,000,000 annually. That is how much the manufacturers and retailers would gain each year from the Government's proposed method of change to decimal currency. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Rubbish! {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- That is, if you accept that method of multiplication. If you accept a weekly difference of 3s., approximately £25,000,000 a year would be added to the takings of those who make a living from a large number of small transactions. 1 am not talking up in the air, because *' Jobson's Investment Digest " of 28th June, to which **Senator Kennelly** and **Senator O'Byrne** referred, is full of tips for investors. It says that the simple technicality of a change-over to decimal currency will benefit those who are engaged in selling low-price, everyday consumer items. It adds - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . investors will be well rewarded by giving this matter attention. This question is posed: Is 4d. going to become three cents or four cents? The whole problem is accentuated by the fact that the Government has not made provision for the half-cent cither in the long run or in the transition period. That was the difficulty in which the Acting Treasurer **(Senator Paltridge)** found himself when he attempted, with an air of great authority and dignity, to rely on paragraphs 194 and 195 at pages 44 and 45 of the report of the Decimal Currency Committee. The Minister dealt with bread and milk and said that there would be just as many buyers' gains if a unit were to be converted to one point below as there would be sellers' gains if the conversion were to one point above. But neither the Minister nor **Senator Laught** read this sentence - >The conversions are based on the tables shown in paragraphs 242 and 244, which assume the existence of a half-cent during the transition period. What is left of the argument that was based upon that table? I say that nothing is left of it and that in reality the table proves nothing because it is based on different assumptions: There will bc no half-cent at all. We suggest that these are the assumptions: The committee did not rubbish the idea of a unit worth 8s. 4d. Indeed, the committee paid very great respect to the argument for the adoption of such a unit. Despite the fact that the committee was not in favour of an 8s. 4d. unit, the committee said in paragraph 230- >The outstanding advantage of the 8s. 4d.-cent system is the exact equivalence of values for all £.s.d. amounts which do not include halfpence. The lOs.-cent system has an exact equivalent for every amount in shillings or ending in sixpence, and has the advantage over the 8s. 4d. unit of providing an easy conversion to pounds . . . In economy of figures there is little between these two systems, although since the 10s. unit is slightly higher in value it has the benefit of what difference there is. So there has not been an outright rejection of the 8s. 4d. unit. The committee has merely shown a preference for the other method of conversion. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty:
TASMANIA · LP -- It was a unanimous recommendation. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- It may have been unanimous, but it entirely fails to meet the case for the 8s. 4d. unit, because it does not squarely deal with the economic problems. The recommendation does not face the realities which the introduction of the proposed system will force upon the ordinary men and women who have most to lose. It is a question of values. I concede that there is more than one way in which to effect the change. The committee has recommended the adoption of a 10s. unit. As I understand it, the argument against the adoption of an 8s. 4d. unit and in favour of the 10s. unit is that of the ease of conversion of high prices. AH that is required with a 10s. unit is a simple multiplication by two, whereas the adoption of an 8s. 4d. unit would require a multiplication by 12 over 5. The latter conversion, of course, may sometimes lead to odd results and perhaps to inconvenience. But a decimal system takes care of all these problems very easily. In my opinion, whatever inconvenience may bc caused in regard to the larger sums, the overwhelming consideration is that a conversion based on a unit of 8s. 4d would not disturb the price structure in any way but would help to preserve price and cost stability at a time when it is very important to do so. Sitting suspended from 5.43 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-13-0-s7 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK:
Victoria -- Just before the suspension of the sitting the Senate was involved in a debate which had been introduced by the Opposition virtually as a censure of the Government in relation to the introduction of decimal coinage. We had an impassioned speech from **Senator Cohen** which reminded me rather of a speech made about 1860. In terms of modern thinking he reminded me of a nostalgic primitive, regretful at the disappearance of the farthing. In essence, that was his speech. He is sorry for the disappearance of the halfpenny which is proposed under the new decimal system. In addition, of course, he was only repeating the bawling in the market place of the soiled wares of the Australian Labour Party by which members of that party seek to invoke the sympathy of the electorate prior, they imagine, to a general election. They hope that the population of Australia - the wage and salary earners - will be enraged by the disappearance of the halfpenny 100 years after the disappearance of the farthing. That is all it amounts to. The whole picture painted relied on the simple fact that the halfpenny will disappear and on the contention that this will have the same disastrous effect that the nostalgic primitives of the 1860's felt was involved in the disappearance of the farthing. The argument gets down to the simple problem whether we adopt the 10s.- cent currency or the 8s. 4d.-cent currency. This involves a mass of decimal relations. As a matter of fact, when listening to the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator McKenna),** Senators Kennelly, O'Byrne and Cohen, I felt some sort of sympathy with a political character in Great Britain, Lord Randolph Churchill, the father of the former Prime Minister, **Sir Winston** Churchill When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he had thrown up to him by his advisors a whole series of statistics involving the problem of decimals. In sheer desperation - and in deference to the Australian Broadcasting Commission I paraphrase his remarks - he said, "What are these wretched dots? " Since 3 o'clock we have been hearing a series of remarks from the Opposition which involve a series of dots. The Opposition senators are merely suffering . from ,a> serious political liver attack. The dots are in front of their eyes. Honorable senators opposite even cast a doubt on the committee appointed by the Government to recommend in respect of decimal- currency-. They cast doubts on every paragraph of the committee's report. They find all sorts of twists and turns in every paragraph of the report. That committee recommended that a decimal currency should be introduced in Australia based on a unit of 10s., with 100 parts to it. In its motion of virtual censure the Australian Labour Party advocates the 8s. 4d. decimal coinage system based on 240 units or, if you take the halfpenny into account, 480 units. It is interesting to look at this proposition because for the past eighteen months in Great Britain there has been sitting a committee appointed by the United Kingdom Government under the chairmanship of Lord Halsbury to make recommendations as to how the United Kingdom Government should establish a decimal currency. It is true that this committee has recommended to the United Kingdom Government that it adopt the 8s. 4d. unit. From this inspirational source the Australian Labour Party has embarked on a motion in the Senate disagreeing with the recommendation of the Australian committee that we adopt a 10s. unit in common with South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, New Zealand and Ireland. The Opposition, in its nostalgic primitivism, has suggested that we should opt, in accordance with the recommendation of the United Kingdom committee, for a decimal currency based on an 8s. 4d. unit. The interesting thing is that Lord Halsbury's committee recommended in Great Britain an 8s. 4d. decimal unit and not a 10s. unit, by a vote of four to two in a committee of six. It is quite clear from the report, which is available to any honorable senator who cares to examine it, that the factor which made the majority of four to two opt for the 8s. 4d.cent decimal currency was the feeling of the committee that in net balance, and in terms of international trade - because sterling is the greatest international trade medium - Great Britain should retain sterling as its international trading currency on the basis of the 8s. 4d.-cent. system. One of the.' bodies invited by the committee in Great Britain to give evidence was the Trades Union Congress of Great Britain. This is what it had to say in the T.U.C. magazine " Labour " of May-June, 1963, In a special issue - >When the Government set up a Committee of Inquiry in 1961 to look into the question of decimalising- A dreadful word that has crept into the language - the currency we agreed to give evidence about the effects such a change could have upon workpeople. These are the working people that Senators Kennelly, McKenna, Cohen and O'Byrne have been bawling about this afternoon - >We asked unions for their views about the possible effect that alternative decimal currency systems could have upon their members and we sent a summary of their replies (which mainly favoured a 10s. cent system) to the Committee. More recently we were asked to give the Committee of Inquiry our views on the possible withdrawal of a halfpenny equivalent under a decimalised currency. That is what the Opposition has been crying about - >After considering in detail the issues that would be raised by such a change and their possible consequences, we informed the Committee of Inquiry that we considered the elimination of fractions of cents would justify the dropping of a halfpenny equivalent and that we, therefore, favoured the adoption of a 10s. cent system and, within that system, omission of a halfpenny equivalent. {: .speaker-KSL} ##### Senator Maher: -- That was the Trades Union Congress of Great Britain? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- -Yes. But these backwoodsmen we have here have been plumping for the 8s. 4rf.-cent. system which was recommended by Lord Halsbury's committee by a bare majority. The " Financial Times " of Tuesday, 24th September - the day after Lord Halsbury's committee reported - gave an extensive quotation from the committee's recommendations. This is what it stated on the risk of increased prices - >The adoption of either system- That is, the 8s. 4d. or the 10s. systems- would involve a risk of price increases, but the committee concludes that in practice these might amount to no more than 0.75 of a point in the Index of Retail Prices, or about 9d. in every £5 spent. That confirms the report of the Australian committee and indicates that the risk of Increased prices does not amount to: very much. The " Financial Times " went on to state in its report - >What would happen to prices if a new currency system were adopted? The Committee says: " The weight of the evidence was that some price increases would take place, but that the real extent of these would be less, and possibly considerably less, than the maximum rise of li points on the worst assumptions. > >Our view is that, if no halfpenny equivalent were provided, it would be right, under a £-cent-i or lOs.-cent system, to think in terms of a likely immediate rise of less than one all-items point in the index (of Retail Prices) - perhaps something of the order of i point - and to regard this as in some degree drawing off subsequent price rises." > >Although the committee agrees that no rise in prices can be lightly dismissed, it says it cannot attach great significance to a possible rise not much more commensurate than the present average monthly fluctuation up and down of the index. That is what would happen in Australia. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- It has happened in South Africa, too. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- Yes. As a matter of fact, I have here an article by Professor Arndt, who was chairman of the board which dealt with this matter in South Africa. He states - >Much publicity was given to so-called profiteering through the unfair conversion of f.s.d. prices, etc. to Rand/cent, but much of it was ill-informed or unfounded. Reference was made over and over again to the bad example which the Government had set, when, indeed, it had acted in exemplary fashion. **Senator Mckenna, Senator Cohen** and other honorable senators opposite referred to the possibility of increases in postal charges, fares and so on, but- that is a matter which it is within the competence of the Government to adjust. It does not enter into the retail price index. Let me refer to other statements which have been made on this matter, because many statements have been quoted here during the debate. The "Economist" of 28th September, in referring to Lord Halsbury's survey, stated - >A survey carried out by the Ministry of Labour of Great Britain on behalf of the Committee indicates that under either the £ I -cent system or the lOs.-cent system unit the consequent effect on rounding up of prices could represent no more than .75 per cent. of. the retail price index, or about 9d. in every £5 spent. That confirms the conclusions of the Decimal .Currency .Committee .in Australia.- The " Daily Telegraph " of the same date, in referring to the Halsbury committee report and the 8s. 4d. unit, stated - >The cost of low-priced commodities would have to be adjusted. That is quite true. The report went on - >Newspapers and postal charges and many other items on the small list will rise. Of course, no one is obliged to buy the "Daily Telegraph" or the "Sydney Morning Herald " if he does not want to pay what the proprietors of those newspapers charge for them. No one has to pay for a box of matches a price which has increased by 20 per cent. More matches can be put in the boxes. The people in Great Britain have examined this matter of decimal currency pretty thoroughly. Lord Halsbury's committee employed the psychological unit of the General Medical Council to make secret surveys in certain selected areas of Great Britain in order to ascertain whether the people wished to have the 8s. 4d. system or the 10s. system. The report of the council indicates that when the matter was explained to the people, most of them wished to have the 10s. -cent system. I say, **Mr. President,** that this proposal is one of the most phoney, electioneering devices ever to be introduced in the Senate. It has been raised for purely party political purposes, and I suggest that the Senate reject it. {: #subdebate-13-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s9 .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia -- Let me say, at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, that I support the proposition put forward by **Senator Kennelly** and reject the arguments that have been advanced by the supporters of the Government. References have been made to the report of the Decimal Currency Committee and I also wish to refer to the report, but before I do so I want to say sincerely that my remarks should not be construed as reflecting in any way on the members of the committee. It was composed of human beings with ordinary human failings. They could make mistakes, just as I can or as any other honorable senator can. We should all be cognizant of that point. The fact that a committee has been appointed ''and its. findings are before the Senate should not be accepted as the end of the affair. I think that the Senate would reject such a proposition, and I believe that the Government falls down on its arguments when it stands on the report of the committee unequivocally. **Senator Paltridge** said that he was puzzled to know why this debate should take, place. His perplexity was shared by **Senator Laught** and **Senator Cormack.** Perhaps the Government supporters have not a monopoly of perplexity in this respect. We of the Opposition were puzzled when the Cabinet decided that the new major unit of decimal currency would be called the royal. The general public was extremely puzzled by that decision. Then, we were puzzled by the inordinately long time which the Government took to change its mind. In fact, it took about six or seven weeks to do so, even though it had been confronted with facts and figures which demonstrated quite clearly that about 95 per cent, of the people of Australia thought that the name was wrong. Therefore, I do not think there is any need for **Senator Paltridge** to be puzzled because this matter has come before the Senate. As honorable senators from this side of the chamber have said, this is a most important matter which affects every person in the Australian community. Why should it not come before the Senate on this or any other day, in order that it may be ventilated? I remind **Senator Paltridge,** Laught and Cormack that, when they speak disparagingly of the action of the Opposition in bringing the matter forward for discussion, they should remember that only a few weeks ago 60 senators were brought from widespread parts of Australia to debate daylight saving, a matter over which this chamber has no jurisdiction whatever. That was done at considerable expense to the taxpayers of Australia. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- That subject was not raised as a matter of urgency. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- It certainly was not urgent, but we were asked to come here and discuss daylight saving. We spent a day in fruitless discussion of a matter over which the Senate has no jurisdiction, at the expense of the taxpayers of Australia, because of the folly of. a Government which now has the temerity to say that we have no right to bring forward this vital question of decimal currency. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- No one has said that. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- It has been said. **Senator Cormack** said quite clearly that we were wasting the time of the Senate. While I am on the subject of **Senator Cormack's** contribution to the debate - and I have quite a regard for the honorable senator's capabilities - let me say that I do not think he was at his best to-night in attempting to make a burlesque of the discussion of a matter which we consider most important. It is not a mark of good debating to try to rubbish your opposition when you have no argument to put forward. I think we should ask ourselves: What were the main motives of the committee appointed to deal with this very important question? I think the committee considered, and perhaps not unwisely, that two of the vital things with which it had to concern itself were economy of conversion and simplicity of operation. Both those things are laudable in themselves. Having read the report very carefully from cover to co-'er, 1 am of the opinion that if the committee erred at all - it is only my humble opinion that I am putting forward - it erred in taking those two points to the exclusion, perhaps, of the impact of two things. One is the question of inflation and the other is the *matter* that has been brought forward very ably by speakers on the Opposition side in the course of this debate - in particular, Senators McKenna, 0'Byrne, Cohen and Kennelly - the impact on the ordinary people and what might happen to them in regard to the prices they have to pay for every day commodities. Having read the report I have yet to be satisfied that proper regard was paid to the last named matters, which we consider are most important in the general scheme of converting to decimal currency. Certainly there is no resistance by the Opposition to the conversion to decimal currency; we have always advocated it. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber agree wholeheartedly that we must, convert to decimal currency. But we have a right and a duty, as members of Her Majesty's Opposition, to take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the interests of the public, if we think those interests are being threatened. We are confident that with the introduction of the 10s. unit those interests will be threatened, and it is on that point that we join issue with the Government and, perhaps, with the members of the committee. At the same time I repeat that the integrity of members of the commi'.tee is not in any way in question and, in fact, is not under debate. We ask whether the committee in pursuing the first two principles of economy of conversion and simplicity overlooked to some extent the vital need to protect the interests of the consuming public and, in particular, the family man. We ask ourselves also whether the committee dismissed too lightly the possibility of the inflationary trends inherent in the 10s. unit. I come now to what I think is a ma'ter of relevance, a matter which has intruded into this debate and which, I think, goes to the very essence of what we believe is the desirability of the 8s. 4d.-cent unit as against the *lOs.-cent* unit. At page 29 of the committee's report a reference is made to the halfpenny. This is a matter that has been dismissed lightly by most speakers on the Government side, and dismissed contemptuously by **Senator Cormack** in the course of his contribution to this debate. **Senator Cormack** said, if my memory serves me correctly, that it had taken the Labour Party 100 years to get away from the complex of the discarding of the farthing. I suggest to the honorable senator that on the evidence of the type of thinking he was showing to-night he might be considered still to have been wandering around in the last century. We are dealing with the present day and age and the needs of the people to-day. We are not concerned that **Senator Cormack** is unhappy about the fact that some people still want to retain the halfpenny, or its equivalent, in the currency of this country. After all, as he would probably agree, the people who are really concerned with whether we preserve that microscopic unit in our coinage are those who have the most responsibilities and the least amount of money with which to meet them. Let us not forget that fact. At page 29 of the report, when dealing with the retention of the halfpenny, the committee said - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . because the evidence received by the Committee indicates that the present halfpenny is thought by many people to be of little real use, there appears to be no point in considering a two-place decimal system with a minor unit of lower value than the existing penny, since this would also give a fairly low-valued major unit. On this score, the 4s. 2d.-cent system, based on the halfpenny, is thought unsuitable. J suggest that that statement is ambiguous to the extreme. Who are the many people who believe this? Certainly they are not the pensioners of Australia who place a real value on the halfpenny. Certainly they are not the housewives of Australia who know that a halfpenny saved on each of a dozen or two dozen items means a considerable amount in their weekly budgets. I am satisfied that those sections of the community were not among the many who were supposedly rejecting the proposition that the halfpenny should be retained. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Ninepence in every £5. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- That is not true, **Senator, and** you know it. It is sheer sophistry to argue along those lines. The honorable senator is just as much aware of that fact as we are. The only thing that prevents me from going into that and demonstrating where he is wrong is the time factor, which will not permit me to do it. ] have several other points that I want to make. {: .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator Paltridge: -- Have a go on the adjournment. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- I might give consideration to that suggestion. At pages 46 and 47 are further references to the halfpenny. ' At page 47 of the report is this reference - >Official figures showing the circulation of halfpence reveal that demand is active, although it h;t» varied considerably in recent years. It is thought that some parts of irregularity of demand is due to changes in the prices of widely consumed commodities such as bread, milk and beer. Here is one of the contradictions with which this report is studded. On the one hand the committee summarily rejected the proposition that we should retain the halfpenny, or its equivalent in the decimal currency, but. on the other hand, it slated quite specifically that there are many commodities on which the halfpenny is still used. 1 wonder whether the committee considered also that there are many commodities, other than bread, milk and beer, covered by such an eventuality. The report then slates - >The Committee established, from enquiries directed through the Department of Territories, that the halfpenny is of little importance, as a coin used by the native population, in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I ask the Senate: What does that prove? It does not prove anything at all and, quite frankly, 1 believe that that statement should not have been inserted in a report of this character as a reason why we should reject the equivalent of the halfpenny in any consideration of a conversion to decimal currency. Finally, I want to take the debate back to where the Opposition thinks it really belongs. There may be disputation and differences of opinion as to whether it would be more convenient to have the 10s. -cent unit than the 8s. 4d.-cent unit. There may be a matter of greater cost involved in th adoption of the proposition put forward by the Opposition, lt may well be that the adoption of this system may cost an extra amount of money. I am not disputing the possibilities associated with those facts, but what 1 do say, and what is the kernel of the argument advanced by the Opposition, is thai the social conscience of the Senate is involved in the question of whether we should measure these disabilities against the welfare of the vast majority of the ordinary people of Australia. The debate is as simple as that. That is the issue which concerns the Senate. It is nol a highsounding argument as to whether Jones or Smith knows more about percentages or what they represent, or how glibly he can roll them off his tongue. It is a question of whether the Senate is prepared to take the necessary steps to safeguard adequately the interests of the ordinary people of Australia. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKellar)** - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-13-0-s10 .speaker-KRG} ##### Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania -- It seems strange that with a bill in the offing - no doubt it will be introduced in the very near future - to give effect to the proposal to put a decimal currency system into operation in Australia, the Opposition should move now the adjournment of, the Senate to discuss the pros and cons of decimal currency. We do not know the details of the bill to be introduced. We do not know how far-reaching the legislation will be. To introduce this subject as a matter of urgency at this stage seems like an attempt to fill the people of Australia with apprehension before the bill is brought down by making them think that the change-over to decimal currency will be inflationary and increase costs to the average person. I for one do not feel that this departure from recognized procedure is good. In point of fact, this debate seems to me to be just as time-wasting as the discussion on daylight saving some weeks ago was alleged to be. Most of the discussion has centred on the small units in the currency. It seems to be the contention of the Opposition that the smaller denominations of the new currency should approximate in value the small coins at present in use. This would mean that those smaller denominations would have to be below the value of 9d. in terms of the present coinage. The Opposition's contention is that this would avoid changes in the prices of small articles purchased by ordinary people. I think that that argument was most effectively dealt with by **Senator Cormack,** who quoted the opinions of trade unionists in the United Kingdom. He referred to evidence that had been tendered in that country and he could have gone on to quote opinions expressed in South Africa. Here is what **Dr. E.** H. D. Arndt,, chairman of the South African Decimalization Board, said twelve months after the decimal system had been put into operation in South Africa - >In conclusion, it may be mentioned that in certain quarters the fear was- expressed that the introduction of a cent equivalent to 1.2 pence might lead to an increase in the cost of living due to the charging of as many cents as pence formerly. These fears have proved unfounded. The chairman of that board referred to the same fears that are being expressed by members of the Opposition to-day. In South Africa, where a cent with a value of 1.2d. was introduced, there has been no drastic increase in prices. Provided we have a reasonable ambit of currency, prices in Australia - or in any other country - will follow the trend of the economy. That is the yardstick by which increases in prices can. always be measured. I must pay a tribute to the persons who constituted the Decimal Currency Committee and carried out the investigation into the decimal system. It is amazing to read the evidence that was taken from individuals, companies and business institutions. The committee went to no end of trouble in compiling its reports. Evidence was taken from people who ought to know something about this proposition because they are the people who will probably be most affected by any change in the currency. There is a long list of their names covering several pages of the report. Although the report does not purport to say the final word on this matter, paragraph 221 on page 50 reads as follows: - >Of individuals who recommended specific decimal systems some 18 per cent, preferred the £-cent (usually with a half-cent coin) and 27 per cent, preferred the lOs.-cent system . . . A fairly substantial proportion of the people who gave evidence favoured the lOs.-cent system. The report continues - >In evidence received from organizations or associations, the lOs.-cent system was much more predominant, being preferred by some S3 per cent, of those who proposed a specific system. Tha £-cent was recommended by only 17 per cent. Only 8 per cent, favoured the 8s. 4d.-cent system. There was a fairly predominant body of opinion of those people who gave evidence - who are probably in a better position to express an opinion about the change-over than are the great majority of people - which favoured precisely what the committee --- recommended. **Senator McKenna** said that the committee seemed to concentrate too much on the disabilities and inconvenience that would be caused by the change-over. He went on to say that no matter what those inconveniences may be they should be endured so long as a currency can be introduced which coincides as nearly as possible with the existing currency. I think that that was the burden of his remarks. It certainly was the province of the committee to consider that serious aspect of the change-over because we are dealing with something that affects the life of every individual for every day of his life. Surely it is a reasonable proposition that this change-over, so important to everybody, should be made with as little inconvenience as possible. Honorable senators have concentrated on the smaller units of the currency, but little has been said about the £1. We must consider the position of business houses which keep records and compile price lists expressed in pounds. We must also consider the requirements of banking institutions. The basic unit proposed by the Opposition represents five-twelfths of the present £1. Account must be taken of the amount of arithmetic that would be necessary to bring about a change-over to that unit compared with the proposal that is embodied in this report. Under the system recommended by the committee all you would have to do would be to multiply the old figures, expressed in pounds, by two. I would hazard a guess that that was one of the reasons that caused New Zealand and South Africa to adopt the 10s. dollar system. Surely it must be obvious that the extra cost involved in the complicated procedures of conversion under the system favoured by the Opposition would be almost fantastic by comparison with the cost of the much simpler method under which a dollar is half of £1. I say that without taking into consideration the individual who would be compelled to work out what should be duc to him during the transitional period and the problem that that would pose. The report goes into that aspect. It includes a table which proves beyond any doubt how much easier it would be to convert to decimal currency under the 10s.- cent system than under the proposal advocated by the Opposition. There is no comparison whatever when one enters the higher realm of currency. It is simple to convert 2s. to 20 cents, ls. to 10 cents and 6d. to 5 cents. All of these units can be retained. The committee extended its consideration to the higher brackets, not just those which have been concentrated on by the Opposition, whose arguments have been so effectively exploded by **Senator Cormack.** As a layman, who is probably not nearly as qualified to express an opinion as the witnesses heard by this committee, who are dealing with these matters every day of their lives, looking at the subject from top to bottom I have no doubt that the commit'tee adopted 'the simplest and easiest system. A few months ago I was talking to a man named Mason, whom one might call the father of decimal currency in New Zealand; he advocated it twenty years ago. Incidentally, he is a stalwart of the Labour Party and a former Labour Minister of the Dominion. He expressed himself as perfectly satisfied with the New Zealand proposal to adopt the 10s. dollar. The only regret that he expressed was that the government was too lethargic in bringing in the necessary legislation. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that no matter what the inconvience is, it should be endured. That is all right when you do not have to take the rap. When you are not in government you do not have to accept all the kicks that will be forthcoming because of the inconvenience. From reading this report I believe that in some respects chaos would result if the Opposition's proposal were to be adopted. {: #subdebate-13-0-s11 .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria .- in reply - I marvel at the case that was put up by the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Paltridge).** If anyone was answered, it was he. He read certain parts of the report that he thought suited his case, but he did not read other parts of the report that were in very close proximity and were very relevant to the parts that he cited. No effective answer has been given in relation to what happened in South Africa. The Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Henty)** said by way of interjection that those things happened only in the first year. **Senator Cormack** read Professor Arndt's statement that there was no increase at all in prices in South Africa. In view of that contradiction, what will the people outside think of the system that the Government proposes to introduce? We are not opposed to decimal currency. All that we are concerned about is that in the change-over the ordinary person should not suffer as a result of increased prices. **Senator Cormack,** in light vein - he was in extremely light vein to-night - asked, " Who would worry about a box of matches?". I know that he is a country dweller. I suppose it is easier for him to rub two pieces of wood together than strike a match, and if he wants- 13° go "ba'ck'-to that state I have no objection. The case that we have submitted has not been answered. We have instanced the newspaper or other commodity that costs 3d. No one will really suggest that the retailer will be prepared to lose *.66.* by reducing the price to two cents when he can make .6d. by charging three cents. Common sense alone indicates that there will be no reductions, because the retailer's costs are calculated. He will not risk having to close his doors by being so benevolent as to reduce prices. He will be compelled for economic reasons to raise them. Why should we run that risk? We should introduce the 8s. 4d.-cent system, under which there is no possibility of an increase in prices. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The time allotted for the debate on this motion has expired. {: .page-start } page 1000 {:#debate-14} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: - >Customs Bill 1963. Excise Bill 1963. {: .page-start } page 1000 {:#debate-15} ### COMMONWEALTH BANKS BILL 1963 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **(Senator Paltridge)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-15-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. As the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** announced in his recent Budget speech, the Government has decided to provide a further £5,000,000 towards the capital of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. The necessary amendment to the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-1962 to increase the capital of the Development Bank is provided for in the bill now before the Senate which appropriates the' funds required for the purpose. The Development Bank, which was established tinder the Government's 1959 banking legislation, has the principal func tion of providing finance to assist primary production or to establish or develop industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings, in cases where, in the bank's opinion, finance is desirable but would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. In the period of a little over three and one-half years since its establishment, the Development Bank has made a significant contribution in its own particular field. The number of loans approved by the bank for primary and secondary industry totalled nearly 7,000 by 30th June last for a total amount of approximately £37,000,000. Of this amount, loans for rural purposes, including pasture improvement, clearing, fencing, water conservation, the erection of farm buildings and the purchase of plant, equipment and live-stock, accounted for more than £26,000,000. The bank's activities in the industrial sector have extended to a large number of important industries such as the engineering, chemical, transport, building materials, food processing, textile and mining industries. The bank has also provided considerable assistance for the purchase of equipment on hire-purchase terms by both primary producers and industrial firms. In addition, the bank has furnished a great deal of indirect aid through the supply of technical advice and the support of research efforts in the appropriate fields. The Government is satisfied that the Development Bank is making an important contribution to Australian development, and has decided, after carefully reviewing the bank's resources, that the capital of the bank should now be increased by the further £5,000,000 provided for in this bill. The capital of the bank will then amount to nearly £31,000,000. In addition to its capital, the bank has substantial reserve funds and also has the use of funds borrowed from the Commonwealth Savings Bank. Resources totalling about £70,000,000 will be available to the bank after the provision of the further £5,000,000 capital. This additional capital will not only ensure that the bank is able to maintain its assistance to primary and secondary industry, but should allow the bank some scope to increase the level of that assistance. This is one of the Government's Budget measures designed to promote the development of Australia's resources and I have much pleasure in commending the bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1001 {:#debate-16} ### SUBMAKINE CABLES AND PIPELINES PROTECTION BILL 1963 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Paltridge)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-16-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-JZY} ##### Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. We have before us a small but interesting bill which is necessary for the purposes of an international convention to which Australia has become a party. At the international conference known as the Conference on Law of the Sea, held in Geneva in 1958, four conventions were adopted dealing with shipping on the high seas, fishing and conservation of living resources of the high seas, the territorial sca and the contiguous zone, and the continental shelf. Altogether, these conventions amounted to a marked improvement in the international maritime legal situation in these fields. The particular convention wilh which this bill is concerned is the Convention on the High Seas, which deals with a variety of matters concerning shipping on the high seas which need the benefit of international rules. One of these matters is the protection of telegraphic and power cables, and pipelines, laid beneath the high seas, the term " high seas " meaning all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State. Articles 27, 28 and 29 of the convention, which are quoted in the preamble to the bill, require a State to make laws for the punishment of persons under its jurisdiction who damage submarine cables or pipelines beneath the high seas, and for the indemnification of shipowners who sacrifice ship's gear so as to avoid damage to such cables and pipelines. For obvious reasons, this bill was drafted in consultation with the Department of National Development, the PostmasterGeneral's Department, the Department of Territories and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The legal position in respect of submarine telegraphic cables is that they appear to be already covered to some extent by the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 of the British Parliament, but there is no such legislation under which damage to submarine power cables or pipelines can be dealt with. This bill remedies that deficiency by providing substantial penalties for damage to such pipelines and cables. It also provides for reimbursement of repair costs where damage is caused in the laying of other pipelines or cables, and for the shipowner who loses any gear in avoiding damage to a cable or pipeline to be indemnified, as required by the convention. Provision is also made in the bill for the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885, to which I have referred, to continue to apply to the extent that it is still a part of our Commonwealth law, thus ensuring the continuation of whatever privileges and right Australia may have under the Submarine Telegraphs Convention of 1884, to which that act gave effect. The bill is one which I believe to be both necessary and noncontroversial and I am confident that it will be fully supported by all honorable senators. Debate (on motion, by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1001 {:#debate-17} ### BLOWERING WATER STORAGE WORKS AGREEMENT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-17-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 25th September (vide page 815), on motion by **Senator Sir William** Spooner - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-17-0-s0 .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales -- This bill will make possible the construction of a dam on the Tumut River near Blowering. This dam will be the key work in the great Coleambally irrigation area which has been planned by the New South Wales Government and which will be the biggest irrigation area in Australia. For years the New South Wales Government has contemplated using this area as a food bowl for Australia. It has already done a tremendous amount of work to prepare the area for irrigation, to establish farms and to settle a huge number of people. For at least ten or eleven years the New South Wales Government has tried to secure assistance from the Commonwealth Government to enable it to build this dam so that this irrigation scheme may be completed. Probably every New South Wales senator has been inundated with information from people in the district who have tried, with the assistance of the New South Wales Government, to promote the development of this great area. I am sure every New South Wales senator has heard pleas by the Minister for Conservation in New South Wales, to whom this project has been a dream, in an effort to have this work completed. Year after year the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** and the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** have had placed before them by the Premier of New South Wales and the Minister for Conservation pleas for assistance. I think most New South Wales senators have been through this great district, and those of us who know it have seen its potential. We have seen the Leetons and the Griffiths of the area. We have seen this vast territory waiting for water to bring it alive. We know that with water available approximately .850 closer settlement farms could be brought into production. We have added our pleas to those of the. New South Wales Government for money to be made available for the construction of this dam. This area is, as it were, the horn of cornucopia of Australia - an area which could produce vast quantities of fruit, meat, wool and other commodities that are necessary for the feeding and welfare of this nation. All that is needed is water to give life to the soil. It is well to recall that 80 years have elapsed since some people of New South Wales first had the vision of harnessing the waters of this area and using them to develop it for the growing of food. As the years have gone by and' more people have come to Australia, and the country has become more closely settled, the urgency of this scheme has become increasingly apparent. In 1941, the Minister for Conservation in New South Wales appointed a committee to investigate means by which water could be brought to this area. After the findings of the committee became known it was felt that preparations ought to be made for damming the river and for undertaking a vast settlement scheme in the Coleambally area. Then the Second World War occurred and the plans had to be left in abeyance. After the war, of course, the great Snowy Mountains scheme was conceived. In 1949 agreement was reached between New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth to harness the waters of the Snowy Mountains area. Soon after that decision was made the New South Wales Government asked that the Blowering dam be made part of the Snowy Mountains scheme and that it be constructed as a matter of urgency. At that time, of course, the Snowy Mountains scheme was only in its infancy. In 1953, the Premier of New South Wales appealed to the Prime Minister to assist the State by providing funds to enable the work to be undertaken. It must be remembered that many other projects throughout New South Wales made demands upon the funds that were available. The available moneys had to be spread over various dams, flood mitigation works and other works of that kind. Year after year New South Wales Ministers who attended meetings of the Australian Loan Council pleaded for extra money to be made available for this project. But the Commonwealth could not see its way clear to make, those funds available. In the meantime New South Wales, knowing that this great work would have to be undertaken as early as possible, went ahead with the planning of the Coleambally area for closer settlement. It planned dams that would assist in the diversion of water and made preparations for the establishment of farms as against the time when funds would be made available to commence the Blowering dam. Before discussing the agreement, I should like to point out what this project will mean not only to New South Wales but to the people of Australia as a whole. It is the biggest irrigation scheme that has ever been conceived in Australia. As I have said, we in New South Wales knew that the scheme would come to fruition and preparations were made for the time when this water would flow to the farms and the settlers would be able to grow the. foods which Australia so badly needs. When this area is fully developed it will provide for 720 mixed farms of 540 acres each and for 125 horticultural farms of about 40 acres each, so about 850 farms are to be developed in the area. When we realize that about £10,000,000 worth of goods will flow from this area it is seen how tremendously valuable to Australia the development will be. In addition to the farms, there will be a new town about twenty miles south of Darlington Point, with a population of about 5,000. So this project will not only provide food and closer settlement but will also be a measure of decentralization away from the coastal strip. Probably nothing is more worthy than that. I am proud that we have had sufficient common sense to place the national capital inland. That is another example of decentralization. The construction of this dam is another step in that direction and will permit the area to provide a living for thousands of people many miles from the east coast of Australia. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** stated - > We have ahead of us the challenging task of utilizing Australia's natural resources as quickly as we can. We need to grow more foodstuffs to feed our growing population and to earn additional export income. We need to promote decentralization wherever practicable. I agree with that entirely. Following his comment on the Snowy Mountains scheme and the additions to it that are now being conceived the Minister said - >It was, therefore, naturally a time for stocktaking. That stocktaking emphasized the potential national advantage which we were failing to capitalize without Blowering. It was against this background that the Commonwealth decided to give financial assistance to New South Wales. Tt is not that State alone, but the whole of Australia as well. I say with great respect that that has been the plea of Labour senators from New South Wales for a long time. We have tried tq, tell; the Government that -here is. a challenge. We have told it that here is an enormous area ready to grow tremendous quantities of food. All it required was water, which could be provided by the construction of the Blowering dam. We asked the Government to make available to New South Wales extra funds so that the dam could be constructed. But year after year this plea fell on deaf ears until now, when the Minister and the Government have been able to see what a tremendous scheme this is and have been prepared to assist with finance. As late as last year the Premier of New South Wales, **Mr. Heffron,** wrote to the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** and was told in reply that the Commonwealth Government was not prepared to find the money. Admittedly, when we examine the agreement before us we find it is not particularly generous. It is not giving New South Wales very much at all. It provides that the New South Wales Government shall pay for the whole scheme. That is the first point we have to keep in mind. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- In accordance wilh New South Wales contractual obligations under the Snowy Mountains scheme. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- I do not care how you read it. The fact is that New South Wales will get nothing. It has to pay the whole cost. Do not get the idea that the Commonwealth is being generous. {: .speaker-KPI} ##### Senator Kendall: -- It is Commonwealth money. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- The Commonwealth money is being provided by way of loan, and has to be paid back with interest. The Commonwealth has the money, but it is still the money of the people of Australia, and a lot of it belongs to the people of New South Wales. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- And some of it to the people of Queensland. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- That is correct. This Government is giving Queensland a better deal. I want to make it clear that the agreement provides that the whole of the cost of the scheme shall be borne by New South Wales. That State will have to find half the cost from its own funds. It will be lent the other half by the Commonwealth Government and this will have to be paid back with interest. The agreement also provides that New South Wales will have to develop the whole area within ten years of the construction of the dam. The whole 850 farms must be ready for occupation. The agreement means that the New South Wales Government will have to develop all the roads, all the electricity services, all the canals and schools and everything else. So all that New South Wales will get out of it is the loan of half of the cost of the scheme, which has to be paid back. For its part, the Commonwealth Government proposes only to make a loan of half the cost, which, I repeat, will be repayable with interest over a period. The scheme will benefit the Commonwealth, because the construction of the dam now becomes part of the pattern of the whole Snowy Mountains scheme. It will allow the expert team that the Commonwealth has been fortunate enough to gather together to be kept together and go on with the type of work in which it is trained. This team will be able at the same time to maintain its identity. The project will also save the Commonwealth from the effects of the uncontrolled Tumut River flooding downstream, in respect of which the Commonwealth might otherwise have to meet damages. Do not forget also that the people of New South Wales will be paying, first by taxation, secondly by the interest on the loan, thirdly by the depreciation of the asset. After ten or twelve years the people of New South Wales will have paid almost two-fold for the scheme. So the bill does not represent a very generous gesture to New South Wales. It does put Australia in the position, through New South Wales, of becoming one of the great granaries of the world. In his second-reading speech the Minister put the scheme to the Senate as though hs were presenting the complete picture. But the Commonwealth Government is not doing that. The people of the Murrumbidgee area resent very much what they feel is neglect of the area by the Commonwealth Government. They feel that they are rarely mentioned in any of the Government's publications. They want from the Commonwealth Government the same sort of publicity that is given to Humpty Doo, the Ord River and other schemes that might be politically more spectacular. The people of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area have not received the benefit of the additional grants that have been made to other areas. They feel that they have been neglected and that the Commonwealth has not exhibited towards them the sympathetic consideration that it has shown to the residents of other parts of Australia, particularly Queensland. My friend **Senator Dittmer,** the worthy *doctor from* Queensland, mentioned that money was being spent in New South Wales and that some of it would come from Queensland. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- I do not begrudge that at all. It is only the neglect of Queensland that I quarrel with. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- You agree that the Murrumbidgee irrigation area has been neglected by the Commonwealth? {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Yes. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- This is an area which is important to the Australian economy. I think that delegations from this Parliament should visit the area to see the development that is occurring there and to learn about its problems. Every one in this Parliament should know of the problems and potentialities of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area. The people there should be given to understand that this Parliament is interested in them. It is important to bear in mind that in this year primary products will contribute about a quarter of our national income, and that from those products we shall earn approximately four-fifths of our export income. We have to look forward to the doubling of our primary production in about 30 years' time. We must realize that approximately one-third of the value of all primary production comes from products grown in irrigated areas. Therefore, the people of Griffith, Leeton and Coleambally are contributing to a sound developmental scheme for Australia. They are helping to build up the primary industries that we shall need as we double our population. At the present rate of population increase, in the next ten years there will be 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 more Australians, and within the next 30 years we should double our population. This means that we also must double our production. We have to think about export income and remember that just to the north of us there is the great country of China with more than 700,000,000 people. China to-day is relieving Australia of a great burden by taking from us a tremendous amount of our primary production. China can be looked upon as a potential market for much of our production in the years ahead. The Minister for National Development stated in his second-reading speech that the construction of this dam represents a challenge to the people of Australia. I believe that is so. The vast irrigation scheme which has been developed by the Government of New South Wales also represents a tremendous challenge to the Commonwealth, as well as to the State Government and the people of Australia generally. Unless we are prepared to view sympathetically the demands that are made by the Murrumbidgee irrigation area I do not think we shall measure up to that challenge. I donot wish to appear to be condemning the Government harshly without good reason for doing so, but I point out that last year I saw some 6,000 tons of the best peaches in Australia rotting on the trees because nobody could find sufficient money to pay for harvesting, storing and canning them. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Will not the water from the Blowering dam provide irrigation and enable morepeaches to be grown? {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator ARNOLD: -- That is right. Surely the honorable senator does not suggest that because 6,000 tons of peaches were wasted last year we must not make preparations during the years ahead to grow many more thousands of tons of peaches, many more thousands of fat lambs, many more thousands of tons of rice and so on. All that I am saying is that it is wrong for the Government of Australia to allow that kind of thing to happen in an area where the very best fruit is grown. We have already seen how the capital cities such as Sydney and Melbourne have spread over land which could be utilized to provide our people with food. Because they have spread in that way we have had to look to other areas in which to grow the food that we need now and will need in increasing quantities in the years to come. The agreement to construct the Blowering dam could be the commencement of tremendous development, but if the development is to be all it should be assistance will need to be given by the Commonwealth Government as well as by the Government of New South Wales. In this bill I see. the first evidence, as do the people of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, that the Commonwealth is prepared to assist. I hope we can look forward to the Commonwealth providing even greater assistance in the future. {: #subdebate-17-0-s1 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
New South Wales -- It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this bill which marks a very important phase in the development of New South Wales. Over the last few years we have lauded the development that has occurred in States such as Queensland and Western Australia, and very often we have overlooked the fact that a lot of development has. been occurring in New South Wales. We have overlooked, too, the scope for further development. I shall refer to the Murrumbidgee irrigation scheme at some length later in my remarks, but at this stage I want to remind the Senate of a remark made by the late **Sir Samuel** McCaughey, in evidence that he gave to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in 1906. He said- >In my opinion the waters of the rivers of the Commonwealth, if placed on the surface of the ground so that they could be utilized for irrigation, together with a supply for stock and household purposes, would be of more value to Australia than the discovery of gold; for gold will eventually become exhausted while water will continue as long as the world lasts. I think those were true words. Our experience of irrigation in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area bears out the wisdom of **Sir Samuel** McCaughey's comment. Having listened to **Senator Arnold's** speech, we might be pardoned for wondering whether the Blowering dam is to be a boon or a liability to New South Wales. He dwelt on the conditions which the bill will impose on the government of the State. I remind him that the Blowering dam is now to be constructed in conformity with an undertaking given by the Government of New South Wales some years ago in connexion with the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. At that stage, there was no question of the State Government receiving financial assistance from the Commonwealth to build the dam. The Government of New South Wales undertook to have the dam constructed, but of course that undertaking went by the board. From year to year we have heard from the State Government the usual cry that the wicked Commonwealth Government would not give it sufficient money to do all that it wanted to do. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- New South Wales has to build an opera house. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- It has been said that New South Wales has been able to spend a lot of money on an opera house, but I believe the dam will be finished before the opera house. It will certainly be far more productive than the Opera House, and it certainly will hot be the white elephant that the Opera House will be. Now we find that after evading all the promises that it made in the past, the New South Wales Government has had to come to the Commonwealth Government for the financial assistance that the Commonwealth is prepared to extend to them. I do not want to emphasize this aspect because I feel that those who follow me in the debate will reply to the criticisms that have arisen in this connexion. All I want to say at this juncture is that I feel this phase is merely astory of trouble that has passed. The agreement - between the Commonwealth and the State provides that the Commonwealth shall find the finance for half the cost of the dam and repayment of the loan will begin ten years after the first payment by the Commonwealth Government. The interest rate to be charged will be the same as that charged on long-term Commonwealth loans. The State undertakes that within six months of the completion of the dam a minimum of 70 large irrigation farms will be put into production, either in the Coleambally area or in areas adjacent to the dam. In addition, horticultural farms will be put into production. The undertaking provides further that full use of the waters will be made within ten yearsof thecompletion of the dam. When completed the dam will provide for the storage of 1,300,000 acre-feet and will, as **Senator Arnold** told us, permit the damming of the waters of the Tumut River. The construction of the Blowering Dam will also permit the waters of the Tumut River, together with waters diverted from the Tooma, Eucumbene and upper Murrumbidgee rivers, to be diverted when required. Obviously, waters that could have been dammed have been running to waste for the past couple of years, instead of being utilized to their full value. The estimated cost of the project is £22,000,000 on present prices. Whether or not that cost will be exceeded one does not know, but I feel that all honorable senators will be gratified and comforted to know that the construction of the dam is in the very efficient hands of the Snowy Mountains Hydros-electric Authority. In view of the magnificent work already performed by that authority on the Snowy River scheme, it gives us a feeling of comfort to know that the dam will be constructed in the most efficient manner possible, at the minimum of cost, and also in very good lime. As the Blowering dam will form part of the Snowy Mountains scheme, I think perhaps the Senate should take a few moments toconsider this magnificent scheme. One is tempted to enlarge to a very great degree on the scheme. Those who have seen it are filled with admiration for the work that has been done there and the project: is something that every Australian should see or make attempt to see. This is one of the world's major engineering feats. There is no question about that. I think the major credit for this project must goto the man in charge, **Sir William** HudsonI am very gladindeed to know at this juncture that the Government intends totake action to avail itself of his services for an extended term. **Sir William** Hudson must go down in the history and development of Australia as one of the great men, not only by Australian standards but by world standards. The Snowy scheme shows what can be clone whenaproject is put on paper. The scheme was conceived by men of great vision.But vision is not sufficient unless you have the men to carry out the scheme. That iswhathappenedwith theSnowy Mountains scheme. I think the Senate will be interested to know that the late **Senator Albert** Reid played a part in the early stages of the Snowy scheme. He was the responsible Minister in the New South Wales Government who gave instructions for the surve'y work to be done in the early stages. Even at this stage the Snowy scheme, in addition to providing for the storage of 1,400,000 acre-feet of water, is providing electricity at a cost of .98d. per kilowatt. The storage of the water alone would be something of very great value indeed for the volume of water will be the equivalent of 1,400,000 acres of land covered with water to the depth of one foot. Last year the amount spent on the Snowy Mountains scheme was in the vicinity of £23,300,000, and the total amount spent on the scheme so far is £219,500,000. Although the scheme is far from complete, the sale of power by the Snowy Mountains Authority last year returned about £7,000,000. Already the scheme has proved itself to be worthwhile financially. In the years ahead it will provide much more power and store much more water. One of the things that has most impressed those of us who are tied to the land is the value of the work done on Snowy by way of reclamation. About £1,500,000 has been spent on the reclamation of the disturbed earth, grasses, shrubs and trees, and anybody who has seen the work that has been done must be filled with admiration. The value of this work is proved by the fact that just recently, when the Guthega poundage was emptied after being in use for eight years, it was found that the siltage was minute indeed. This proved that the fears expressed by some people in the early stages that the dams would be filled with siltage did not eventuate. If there was to be any great degree of siltage it would occur within eight years. In view of the importance of the Blowering dam to the Coleambally and Murrumbidgee valley areas, we can well spend a few moments in looking at the history of this great irrigation scheme. In this respect I join with **Senator Arnold** who said that it has been a great irrigation scheme. But it will be an even greater one. In the year 1855, from a small town called Ballymena in Ireland, a man twenty years of age came to Australia. We are told that he brought with him only his clothes, his ambition and an axe. The story goes that by the time his clothes were worn out he had already started to carve with his axe a worthwhile place for himself and something that was very worthwhile indeed for the new land to which he had come. He went to the Murrumbidgee area, and being convinced of the value of irrigation, set out to find land on the slope away from the river. He decided that the land in the vicinity of North Yanco was the kind of land that he required, so he settled. He had vision, and he also had the capacity to persuade people that his vision was worth backing. He was a pioneer and he was responsible for the great irrigation projects in that area to-day. He died some 64 years after he arrived in Australia, a twofold millionaire, and he left behind him a wonderful heritage for those who came after him. He had a motto, which I understand still hangs in his old homestead. It is vinci - I conquered. I cannot help but think that perhaps a more appropriate motto would have been veni, vidi, vinci - I came, I saw, I conquered. I notice that honorable senators opposite are laughing. This is no laughing matter. This man was one of the great men of Australia even though honorable senators opposite may not recognize the fact. He was no less a personage than the late **Sir Samuel** Mccaughey, M.L.C. He is known as the man from Ballymena by many people in the Murrumbidgee area, and was a man to whom we in Australia owe a great deal, in that he decided on the venue of the present irrigation areas. These areas at that time had a carrying capacity of one sheep to 5 acres, and in some cases even one sheep to 10 acres. Indeed, some of this country in the Coleambally area to-day, which is perhaps a little more fertile than the country I have spoken of, had a carrying capacity of one sheep to 2 acres, but since irrigation the carrying capacity has increased to something like four sheep to the acre and perhaps even to as high as seven or eight sheep to the acre on some properties. Irrigation has brought about a tremendous increase in the carrying capacity of these areas, quite apart from any productive increase; it is really a sight to behold. Although they are not surrounded by desert country one could almost refer to these irrigation areas as oases in the desert. They include wonderful vineyards, pasture-improved properties carrying sheep and- live-stock and last, but by no means least, large areas of rice. The Blowering proposal was first mentioned in 1884 and water for irrigation was supplied first on 30th July, 1912. In 1914 there were 622 farms under irrigation, covering an area of some 26,000 acres. Now there are 2,000' farms covering an area of more than 350,000 acres. A little more than 50 years ago the population of the area was about 100. In that same area to-day the population is about 30,000. It is expected that when the Blowering scheme is completed and the extra farms are put into production there will be no fewer than 1,500 farms there. My figures may be a little different from those given by **Senator Arnold.** The honorable, senator said that a new town, to be established 22 miles south of Darlington Point will have a population of between 4,000 and 5,000 people. All this has been accomplished, and more will be accomplished, because water has been made available on this land. Without water we could not have the results that I have just outlined to the Senate. It is only right that I pay a tribute to the New South Wales Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission, which has done a splendid job in this area. The commission is comprised of practical men with experience in the area. Naturally, they have spent a lot of time there. The members of this commission adopt the attitude - quite rightly, in my opinion - that men should not be put on to these irrigation blocks unless they have sufficient capital to enable them to make a success of the venture. That is a common-sense attitude. So far as finance is concerned, providing a man has the necessary qualifications and experience, or is a member of a family that has had experience on the land, the yardstick is that he must have capital of about £8,000 or £9,000. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- That is a lot of money. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- It is a lot of money, but it is no use putting people on to this land unless they have this money. The Commonwealth Development Bank is playing its part in helping to put people on the land. From conversations I have had with officers of the bank I have gathered that they adopt the same attitude as members of the New South Wales Conservation and Irrigation Commission. They, too, think that it is no good putting people on to these blocks unless they have capital of some £8,000. I mentioned earlier that rice is being grown in these areas. The position as I understand it is that a certain amount of water is allowed to the owners df the irrigation blocks. They can please themselves what crops they grow, but sufficient water is made available to them to allow them to grow 60 acres of rice for four or five years. Then the amount of water is cut down, the idea being that by the time four or five years have elapsed the settler has had the opportunity to plant pasture, develop it .and switch over to cattle and sheep. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- There is a quick return from rice? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- Yes, there is a quick return from rice. This reduction in the amount of water has been brought about because an insufficient amount of water has been available. Now that an additional amount of water is to be made available it could well be that in addition to the extra irrigated farms to be established the existing farms - I am not saying that this will be so - could be allowed more water. Apart from the rice that is grown one cannot help but be impressed by the beautiful fruit that is produced in this area. **Senator Arnold** mentioned the large wastage in the peach crop last year. I do not think the wastage was as large as was first expected. Unfortunately, wet weather set in and ruined much of the peach crop that otherwise would have been available. The New South Wales Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates the fruit crop and its estimate last year was very near the actual production. The growers in the area knew of the estimate. They have established a very efficient co-operative cannery which employs about 1,000 people in busy times, but even so the cannery was not big enough to can all the peaches that were available. I fail to see how the Commonwealth Government can be blamed for the loss or the wastage that.- occurred.! It is regrettable indeed than any loss should have occurred, but the cannery was working at full pressure attempting to can the available fruit. It must not be forgotten that as well as the fruit being canned, a market has to be found for it. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McClelland: -- Are you referring to the cannery at Leeton? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- Yes. The farmers work on a very low profit margin, which means that they must sell all their production. They have not the capital to build any large storage facilities. There are two fine towns in the area at present - Leeton and Griffith. They are progressive, prosperous and modern. **Senator Arnold** has mentioned the new town that it is proposed to build some 22 miles south of Darlington Point. All in all, the Blowering dam is certainly going to mean a great deal to the future development of New South Wales. To give honorable senators an idea of the production of this area I have a chart Containing figures for the season 1961-62. The total value of produce from the irrigation area was £10,256,200. Of that amount rice contributed the large amount of £2,322,240; live-stock brought in £1,750,000; wool, £1,187,000; vegetables, £876,000; peaches and nectarines, £771,000; wine grapes, £750,000; citrus, £709,000; wheat and oats, £594,000; apricots, £30.1,000; pome fruits, £257,000; miscellaneous products, £197,000; milk and butter, £194,000; prunes and plums, £175,000; and table grapes, £173,000. I have mentioned that the value of production from the area was £10,000,000 in 1961-62. It has been running generally at about £8,000,000. The rice-growers got together, established their own- efficient rice mill, and developed markets overseas. Their rice is cleaned and marketed and there is no question that it is very good rice indeed. No single industry in this area has enjoyed such spectacular success as ricegrowing. Tried as an experiment in the early 1920's, it rapidly gained favour with the large area farmers. During the 1925- 26 season, approximately 2,000 acres were planted for a yield of 1,500 tons. In recent years, the area planted to rice on the Murrumbidgee irrigation area has been in the vicinity of 25,000 acres and the average yield slightly better than two tons to the acre. Last year, I think, the ricegrowers obtained about four tons to the acre, and yields of three tons to the acre are quite common. They are experimenting continually with different types of rice. It is indeed a great tribute to the initiative of these growers that they were able to establish their own rice mill and conduct it in a very efficient manner with their own finance. When one reflects on what has been done in that area and sees the prospects for future expansion with the construction of the Blowering dam, one cannot help but feel very pleased indeed that such a worthwhile project is before the Senate. All of us may feel a certain amount of pride that in our own small way, by passing this legislation, we shall be enabling the expansion of this area of New South Wales, with great benefit not only to the State but to Australia generally. I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill. {: #subdebate-17-0-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales -- This bill is to approve the water storage works agreement, concerning Blowering dam, between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales. It is important to observe, first of all, that the agreement provides that the State of New South Wales is to arrange for the construction of the storage works, including the dam, and the part of the Commonwealth is to provide financial assistance. That financial assistance is the lending to the State of half the cost of the works, which will be repaid by the State at the prevailing bond rate. So, in the first place, if any one is to be congratulated on this matter it is the State of New South Wales. It is undertaking at a time that is very difficult for itself, in view of its other great commitments, the construction of these works, which will be of great value not only to New South Wales but also to other States, in particular South Australia, and to the Commonwealth of Australia. The State of New South Wales is constructing the works through the agency of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. This is a matter of 'great satisfaction to the Australian Labour Party, because it is part of our policy that the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority should be placed on a permanent and Australia-wide basis. Here is a step towards that. This agreement, which foreshadows the construction of this great work, must be a matter of great satisfaction and joy to the people of the Riverina, the people in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area and contiguous areas. One might say that for the last few years this has been the thing most in their minds. Time after time, when Labour senators have visited that area, the residents have spoken of this more than of anything else. They wanted the construction of the Blowering dam. That is understandable, because in that area they have seen the great benefits which have come from irrigation. It has been said here to-night that all that that area needs is water. Those who have said that meant what they said, but I think that they are wrong. That is not true at all and it has never been true in Australia. We are one of the countries which are most in need of water. Perhaps this is the driest continent on earth. When we think of Australia, with its streams which we call rivers, and compare it with South America with its Amazon, . Europe with its Danube, and China with its Yellow River, we' realize that Australia is very badly off in regard to water. But water is not everything. Honorablesenators are aware of what has been done elsewhere inAustralia where one thought that water was everything that was needed. The history of irrigation schemes in Australia shows that wateris by no means everything. It is a necessity in an area such ast his, but it isnotevery- thing. The success of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area has been due to atleast three things, one of which is water. Without that, there would be no Murrumbidgee irrigation area. But on top of that, knowledge is needed. Without knowledge we cannot have a successful irrigation area. In the Murrumbidgee irrigation area there has been a great deal of knowledge. That has been provided by the scientific officers and other experts in the New South Wales Department of Agriculture;and also by theCommonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organization,of which **Senator** Gorton is Minister-in-charge. There is a Commonwealth research station at Griffith, which has done a remarkable job for the advancement of that area. One might say that without the contribution of those two authorities and of the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission of New South Wales there could not possibly have been the success that we have seen in that area. Even that is not enough. A third element is needed, namely, the energy of the people. We have had that in over-abundance in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area. I suppose there is no place in Australia which excels that area in the enthusiasm and energy of its people. There has been a combination of those three things - the water, the knowledge and the energy and determination to make use of the water and the knowledge which was givent hem, to produce the wealth in abundance that they have produced such as wool, fat lambs, barley, beef, rice and cotton. There have been world records in the production of rice. That area has supplied other parts of the world with rice.It. has outsold the Americans in rice in Okinawa andother parts of Asia. . It has sold citrus fruits in parts, of theworld where it was thought that we could never compete with other countries. It has overcome the problem of competition from other countries which have had; the advantage of low wages and, perhaps, better publicity campaigns. The people of thatarea have got out and sold their products. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright, by way of interjection: asked **Senator Arnold** a question about peaches rotting on the trees inthe area I should like to tell **Senator Wright** that the trouble, as I understand it, is that there was a lack of canning facilities. The peopleof that area in typical fashion, have determined to overcome this difficulty and set up another canning factory. There is no problem of over-production. Theywill produce and sell. They are determined to produce as much as they can, to organize themselves; and to sell in Australia or overseas. They are determined to cope with their problems. If the Government will help them- very well! If it will not, they will helpthemselves. That is what they have been doing up to date and it is what they will do in future. That is why this agreement is of such value to Australia.It provides for the construction of a dam in an area in which the people have proved that they are capable of making the most of the water that has been given to them and of the assistance that has been given to them by the government department. They will do well. Their secret of success lies in the versatility of their products. They have not tied themselves down to wool, rice or cotton. They are determined to be able to switch from the production of one commodity to the others. All the time, they are determined to improve and extend the range of their products. With this approach to their affairs, they will do extremely well. **Senator McKellar** made a statement, which I think requires some qualification, about the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank in this area. I understood him to congratulate the Development Bank on what it had done. Unfortunately, I am not able to agree with his remarks on that matter. I understand that the Minister for Conservation and Irrigation in New South Wales also would not feel able to congratulate the Development Bank on its role in this area. It seems that, notwithstanding the will of those in charge of the Development Bank, it has been constrained in such a way that it has not been able to do as much as it ought to do in this area. Those in the area feel that it has not given the assistance which, perhaps, might be expected of it by the Australian people. I am confident that the future may see a change in this respect. There are many matters of importance in regard to this agreement. Perhaps I might simply add that I share in the opinion expressed by **Senator Arnold** with regard to the future of this scheme. Together with a number of other Labour senators, he and I recently visited this area and spoke to a number of persons there. We all were impressed with the go-ahead attitude of those in charge of the various primary industries - the rice marketing board, the co-operatives and the representatives of the industries in the area. Each one is determined to make the utmost use of the benefits which will flow from the Blowering dam. We, on this side of the chamber commend the Government for at last having assisted the State of New South Wales in its endeavours to construct this dam. We are proud that an ancillary to the great Snowy Mountains scheme which is bound to bring great benefit to Australia is now to be brought to fruition. {: #subdebate-17-0-s3 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales -- Madam Acting Deputy President, the title of this bill is the Blowering Water Storage Works Agreement Bill 1963. I am very happy and proud to support the Government which has presented the bill to the Senate and the nation. Naturally. I give the bill my wholehearted support. Briefly, the purpose of this bill is to approve of an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales to construct a dam on the Tumut River at Blowering. The agreement provides for a loan by the Commonwealth to the State of half the cost of the proposed works on certain terms and conditions. The agreement also provides for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority to design and construct the dam in agreement with the State of New South Wales. Finally, the agreement provides for the State of New South Wales to provide farms in the area, using the water storage within ten years of the date of completion of the work. I think it is very good that Opposition senators find themselves in support of this proposal. I think we all recognize, as has been indicated by **Senator Arnold** and **Senator Murphy** that, in the ultimate, this work will be of tremendous significance for this nation and particularly for the sovereign State of New South Wales. Unfortunately, Madam Acting **Deputy President, Senator Arnold** attempted to produce an argument in criticism of the Commonwealth. He suggested, that the Commonwealth had been tardy and reluctant in providing the funds for this project. In the ten years during which I have been in this place we have heard many eulogistic references to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme. Opposition senators have always said that it was during their term of office as a government that this scheme was introduced. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- And justifiably so. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- **Senator Dittmer** says, "And justifiably so", in recognition of the importance of a magnificent scheme which has been developed during the last fourteen years that this Government has been in power. I .do not wish to be aggressive, but I do want to put .it on record . that under clause 6, sub-clause 4, of the Snowy Mountains agreement, the cost of the construction of the Blowering works, not including the generating station, was to be borne by New *South* Wales. So this agreement which has received such commendation from all sides of politics provided that the New South Wales Government should bear the cost of building the Blowering dam. As 1 interjected when **Senator Arnold** was speaking, the New South Wales Government was under a contractual obligation to do that very thing. Therefore 1 suggest that any criticism of the present proposal is quite unfair. The New South Wales Government has never denied its contractual obligation. All that it has maintained has been that it has not been in a financial position to do the work. In the national interest the Commonwealth has said to New South Wales, " To enable you to fulfil the conditions of clause 6 of the agreement we are prepared to lend you half the cost of the construction of the Blowering dam ". {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- You are not suggesting that New South Wales has broken any agreement? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- No, I am not suggesting that for a moment. **Senator Arnold** suggested that the Commonwealth had failed to provide the necessary funds. 1 am merely saying that the sovereign State of New South Wales, the mother State of the Commonwealth, had agreed to provide the money to do the job. Now the Commonwealth, in the national interest, hits said: " You are not prepared to do the job at this stage. We think it should be clone without delay and we are prepared to lend you half the cost." I think that is a factual statement of the position. It is important to remember that the construction of the Blowering dam is an important link in the wider concept of the Snowy Mountains scheme. We all are on common ground when we say that the progress that has been achieved with the Snowy scheme has been magnificent. I should think that would be almost an under-statement. The fundamental purpose of the Snowy Mountains scheme is the provision of hydro-electric power and controlled water. In regard to the provision of power, (he Tumut 1, Tumut 2 and Guthega power stations have been com pleted. They have a total generating capacity of 660,000 kilowatts. In the Snowy -Murray section of the scheme, the Murray 1 power station will have a capacity of 950,000 kilowatts by 1968 and the Murray 2 power station will have a capacity of 550,000 kilowatts by 1969. Approximately 2,160,000 kilowatts of power will be available under the scheme by 1969. In regard to water, as a result of the completion of the Tumut 1 and Tumut 2 projects, water from the Eucumbene, Murrumbidgee, Tumut and Tooma rivers has been stored. The Minister for National Development said in his secondreading speech that by 1962. 1,200,000 acre feet of water was available and that by 1969 1,900,000 acre feet of water would be made available for use. Though the provision of power tq New South Wales and Victoria is important, we must not forget that the greatest value of the Snowy scheme lies in the provision of water. As **Senator Murphy** said,' Australia has limited water resources and- there is a need to marshal and husband those resources. Controlled water means the establishment of irrigation areas and closer settlement. Closer settlement means greater primary production, increased productivity, increased overseas balances, and prosperity and good living conditions for our people. The completion of the Tumut 1 and Tumut 2 projects has made available so far an increase of 500,000 acre feet of water a year to the Murrumbidgee River. The construction of the Blowering dam will increase this amount by 600,000 acre feet per annum, making 1,100,000 acre feet of water available for use on that river. In other words, the great national benefits which the Snowy-Tumut section of the Snowy Mountains scheme offers will not be fully realized until the waters that will be made available by this section of the scheme are put to work for irrigation in the Murrumbidgee valley. The Blowering dam must be built before that result can be achieved. The Minister has said - >Construction of the Blowering dam will permit the waters of the Tumut River, together with waters diverted to the Tumut by works of the scheme from the Tooma, Eucumbene and upper Murrumbidgee to be controlled and released as and when required for irrigation along the > >Murrumbidgee. At present the power station releases during the winter months cannot be utilized and, in addition, the natura] flow of the Tumut itself is not fully controlled. Already in the Coleambally area approximately 166 farms have been established. By 1964 a total of 203 farms will have been settled. It is anticipated that when the work is completed it will be possible to establish approximately an additional 650 farms. Therefore, the importance of controlled water begins to be appreciated. When we contemplate that these new farms will produce a wide range of products including rice, barley, fat lambs, wool, beef and cotton, we get some appreciation of the importance of this project, lt has been estimated that the value of additional primary production that will stem from the construction of the Blowering dam will be approximately £8,000,000 a year. As I have already said, under the original Snowy Mountains agreement New South Wales accepted the responsibility of building the Blowering dam. Over the years it has never denied that responsibility, but it has said that it is not in a financial position to proceed with the work. I do not propose to pursue that argument any further. I think I have made the point that I wanted to make in regard to where the responsibility lay. The estimated cost of constructing the dam is £22,000,000, and the Commonwealth is prepared, under this agreement, to lend half of that amount to New South Wales. Repayments will not commence until ten years after the first payment has been made, and the rate of interest will be the long-term Commonwealth loan rate which is applicable at the time the moneys are made available. Reference has already been made by **Senator McKellar, Senator Arnold** and **Senator Murphy** to the development that has taken place in the Murrumbidgee valley. **Senator Arnold** said that it would be the food bowl of Australia. I think that was an apt description. It is of interest to place on record just what progress has been achieved in the Murrumbidgee valley. Before the introduction of irrigation, the area now embraced by the scheme ran less than 150.000 sheep and a few cattle. The annual value of animal pro duction was less than £100,000 and the population was less than 500. Now, even before construction of the Blowering dam has been commenced, the population is approximately 30,000. The total value of production for 1962 was £10,256,200, and approximately 2,000 irrigated farms have been established. If we note that the value of annual production is now about £10,200,000 and that the construction of the Blowering dam will increase that sum by another £8,000,000, we get some idea of the magnitude of this great food bowl. As **Senator McKellar** has said, the history of the Mumimbidgee has not been one of ease. The people of that area have not bad a gift on a platter. The history of the district is one of Australian pioneers, men of courage, who went there under awful conditions in many cases in the early days. With the aid of science and of governments they have produced the magnificent results we see to-day. The annual returns to growers in the area total about £10,200,000. The statistics show that the returns from the various products are: In addition apricots, pome fruits, miscellaneous products, milk and butter, prunes and plums and table grapes are bracketed, and return from £300,000 to £173,000 each. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- It is a fertile area. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- Yes, it is fertile, with controlled water as an essential ingredient. Indeed, the history of the area goes back to the construction of the Burrinjuck dam. It is a story of men from the First World War who settled there, regrettably, in many cases, without enough experience or financial backing. It is also regrettable that many of them did not have an economic area to work. Many lacked knowledge of the principles of irrigation. Since 1920, successive New South Wales governments have had to take measures to save them. Those measures were designed to keep the area productive. At one time there were revaluations and certain action had to be taken regarding titles to make them more readily acceptable. In the life of one of the Lang Governments in New South Wales, legislation was actually introduced to permit considerable writing-off of capital debts. But through it all there has been great persistence and a will to succeed on the part of Australian primary producers, and this enabled them to come through all their difficulties. They introduced co-operatives as a measure of self-help, and to-day, with the control of water, they have made this one of the most fertile areas in Australia. There was a serious drought in 1938, and those were critical times for the area. Fortunately, God was good to us and the drought was broken. That was also a critical time for the Burrinjuck dam. Through it all, men of vision, resource and courage stuck to the task and, with the aid of controlled water, produced something of tremendous importance to Australia. The Blowering dam scheme is an integral part of the Snowy Mountains scheme, and it is to be carried out by the New South Wales Government in conjunction with the Snowy Mountains authority. The Commonwealth will provide half the money by way of loan. The dam represents a further step in Australian progress and in the practice of decentralization. This area will provide food, gainful employment, progress - and security for the area itself. The area has always been entitled to these things. I am not a particularly religious man; I hope I practise my religion as does any other honorable senator. But when I think of this area I think there is something in the story of the talents. Here we have something given to us - by God. We had the rivers, but they had to be harnessed and used. We had to put our brains, our resources and our will to the task. It is to the everlasting glory of Australian citizens and primary producers that they did the job and, with the aid of governments which have in this connexion set aside party politics, they have produced something of tremendous value to the nation. {: #subdebate-17-0-s4 .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER:
Queensland -- I listened with interest to the relatively dispassionate speech of **Senator Anderson.** During the speech **Senator Benn** said, by way of interjection, that it appeared that the, area to be served by the Blowering dam is a fertile area. Actually, in Australian parlance, the soil in that area is not so good. Let us be quite clear about this. Many other parts of Australia are fertile, and we have a responsibility to develop the land. With the aid of science we can make these areas productive. **Senator Anderson** said, when speaking of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, that New South Wales had never denied its contractual obligations, but he said that it was short of money. That is true. The New South Wales Government has never denied its contractual obligations, and neither has any other Labour government in Australia, but it was short of money. Why? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Because of the Sydney opera house. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- That matter was dealt with earlier. **Senator Cormack** is not paying towards the cost of the opera house unless he buys a £3 lottery ticket. That money is not coming from the Commonwealth Government. Let me deal with this matter at a high level, because I do not want to get down to **Senator Cormack's** level. I do not think I could. The whole picture is one of co-operation by the Commonwealth, the States and local government authorities. I do not propose to go into that side of the question, because the scheme is so big and desirable from the point of view of the rights of citizens, local government authorities and State governments. I have heard the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** debiting the New South Wales Government with all the faults in the world when questions have been asked in this place about the construction of the Blowering dam. It has been said that the State government would not fulfil its obligations, but we must ask ourselves whether it had the capacity to do so. If a party to a contract has not the capacity to fulfil the terms of the contract we must look further. At long last the Commonwealth Government has realized that it has a responsibility in this matter and it now proposes to provide half the money required, or an estimated £1 1,000,000. There will be a certain amount of interest on the money and repayment is to be made over twenty years, I think with half-yearly rests. Let us consider the obligations of New South Wales in this matter. The government of the State realized that, because of certain deficiencies on the part of the Commonwealth Government, it could not fulfil its contractual obligations, but it is prepared to accept them now. I was . particularly interested in **Senator Murphy's** comments and in the vehemence with which he espoused his cause. He displayed enthusiasm for the beneficial effect which the construction of this dam. will have on the people who live in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area and those who are likely to live there. Much of the Minister's second-reading speech justifiably was devoted to the development of the Snowy Mountains scheme. Honorable Senators on the Government side of the chamber have given credit to the Labour Government which inaugurated that scheme. It is proper to give credit to the people who visualized, in the last century, the use of water for irrigation purposes. Subsequently, engineers visualized the utilization of water for the production of power. . 'In the process of time a magnificent engineering work which oan take its place with engineering works anywhere else in the world to-day came into being. Great credit is .due to the engineers and to the Prime Minister and his Government, as well as to. the members of the Opposition who supported the proposal in those days. We . see now in the process of accomplishment another magnificent engineering work, .which is being undertaken for the purpose (of providing water for irrigation. ,( - The Blowering dam will enable' people to be settled under proper conditions. It will make power available for New South Wales and Victoria. I agree that the Minister was entitled to traverse briefly in (his second-reading speech the development of the Snowy Mountains scheme. He said that Australia's water resources were limited, and we appreciate that that is so. In recent years, the Commonwealth Government has .provided money for the Government of Western Australia in connexion with the Ord River scheme. Each year a volume of water equal, to five.tim.es the volume in .the Murray River flows between the .banks. of the Ord River.. This bill is concerned with an agreement between the Commonwealth and a particular State in respect of water storage. 1 have sat in this place for some years, but I have yet to hear of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland in relation to water storage and the utilization of such water for the production of power. I think of the volume of water that flows in the rivers of Queensland. I think of the Fitzroy River, with a watershed of 58,000 square miles and with four suitable dam' sites. It is said that the Blowering dam will enable production worth £8,000,000 a year to be achieved, for an estimated cost of £22,000,000, but as you know, **Mr. Acting Deputy "President,** for £25,000,000 a dam could be constructed at the Nathan Gorge on the Dawson River which could result in an annual increment that has been estimated at about £9,000,000. The production that would be possible would be not of peaches, plums, apricots and fruits which can be grown in many other parts of Australia, but of cotton. By means pf irrigation, cotton worth £4,000,000 a year could be grown there and sold at prices comparable with the landed prices of overseas cotton. In other words, we. could save £4,000,000 worth of overseas credit. : **Senator.- Anderson** is entitled to commendation for his detailed approach, to the methods of earning revenue. He spoke of such. sums, as £300,0.00, £700,000 and £800,000 to be derived from the growing of apricots and,other fruits, but I am think? ing of the growing. of cotton which is .an essential commodity under -present-day .conditions. There. is no evidence that cotton. is to be grown as a,result of the construction of the Blowering dam, despite what has been said about ' United 'States' citizens coming out here for that purpose You know Queensland very well; **'Mr. Acting Deputy** President, and 'you know"' 'that cotton could be produced- there if water for irrigation were available. ' The soil is suitable and so arc the climatic conditions.. As I have' said, the construction of a dam' in the Fitzroy basin would be a real contribution to increasing Australia's, primary ' production. I- am: 'not opposed to advancing money to New South Wales for the' construction of the Blowering dam, and neither is- the party which- 1 support. We agree tha't it-is essential to conserve water ' and to utilize' our "soil" in the Belt possible way, but what we say, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, is that other areas of Australia are entitled to a place in the Australian sun. Only as recently as yesterday a deputation visited the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** to seek the establishment of a north Australian development and settlement authority. For how long have you, **Sir, and** I pleaded for a similar authority to be appointed, but what has been the answer that has been given ever since 1949? It has been said that the Chifley Government established such an authority. Of course, it did not do so. A committee of inquiry was appointed, and the recommendation of that committee, of which **Dr. Coombs** was chairman, was that a full-time body should be set up. That advice has never been followed, nor has there been any attempt to establish such a body. Every one knows the reason for that. We cannot afford haphazard development, yet this is an instance of haphazard development. I realized years ago that the New South Wales Government could not afford to finance this project, and I heard the Minister for National Development say repeatedly in this chamber that it was essential that the Blowering dam be proceeded with. Each time a question was addressed to him on this subject he said that the State Government had not accepted its responsibility. I do not say that he sneered when he gave this reply because he is not capable of sneering; that is not part and parcel of his suave approach. **Senator Anderson** said the same thing to-night about the State's responsibility. The New South Wales Government has never denied its contractual responsibilities; it just has not observed them, for the simple reason that it has not had the money for the construction of the dam. For the same reason the Commonwealth Government has not observed its responsibility in toto in northern Australia with regard to development and settlement. Do not let us treat the Blowering dam as an isolated incident. It is part and parcel of a scheme to utilize water, to cultivate land and to produce power. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- I would not stand for it. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- I would not stand for it - -that is more important - and I do not think any decent honorable senator on the Government side would stand for it, if one could get his private opinion. I do not propose to talk about the £219,000,000 that has already been spent on the Snowy Mountains scheme. No one on either side of this chamber, or in the other place, has denied the justification for that expenditure. We all say: All credit to the men who visualized this scheme. Every tribute is paid to the men responsible for that which has already been accomplished. However, when we examine the second-reading speech of the Minister for National Development, we realize that the purpose of the bill is to approve an agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for the construction of a dam. How many dams can be justified? How many dams are not being built because of the parsimonious approach of the Commonwealth Government and its immediate predecessors - subsequent to 1949, admittedly. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator Cole: -- They would not be the immediate predecessors. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- No, but I do not want any help from you in making my speech. I want to make the position quite clear because remarks can be misinterpreted. Prior to 1949 the government of the day had no opportunity to proceed with these works because it had the immediate task of rehabilitating nearly 1,000,000 ex-service men and women. Let us be quite frank and fair about this. The justification for the establishment of the Blowering dam cannot be denied. We do not deny New South Wales a place in the sun. We did not deny Victoria the loan on cheap terms for the constructing of a standard gauge railway line from Wodonga to Melbourne. We do not deny South Australia the millions of pounds that it has got so cheaply. We did not deny Western Australia the amount it was given for the construction of the Ord River dam and development scheme, the Kwinana railway and so on. What we do say is that Queensland is entitled to something that it has not received from a government that has had the control of the treasury bench of the Commonwealth for fourteen years. I make no apology for saying that the Commonwealth Government has given Queensland nothing, apart from money for beef roads, and it gave that only because of a threat of defeat immediately prior to 9th December, 1961. {: .speaker-KRG} ##### Senator Lillico: -- What about the money for the brigalow lands? {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- That, was a loan of £7,500,000, at a time when Australia needed overseas credits and hoped to increase its export of cattle. I repeat that it was a loan - not a gift. And does the honorable senator know how big is the area involved? It is 11,000,000 acres, to be developed with a loan of £7,500,000 on which interest has to be paid. Does the honorable senator know how much it costs to clear that land? It is between 30s. and £2 an, acre. Does he know how much it costs to seed the area? It is 15s. an acre. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- What has this to do with the Blowering dam? {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Your turn will come. I will handle you in the process of time as successfully as I am handling others. Does the honorable senator know how much it costs to take up a blockin that area? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Five shillings and sixpence. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Wait a while. The area of each block allotted is from 6,000 to 10,000 acres. Under a Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland a person must have a minimum amount of capital in order to have his name included in a ballot for a block. Does the honorable senator know what the amount is? I am happy to tell him. A person must be in possession of £12,000 cash or have readily convertible assets to that value. Before a block could be brought into production the settler would be involved in a debt of £40,000, or £50,000. That is the story of the brigalow lands. The loan of £7,500,000 does not provide for roads or other facilities such as schools or hospitals. {: #subdebate-17-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- **Senator, are** you connecting your remarks with the Blowering dam? {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- No, but a Government senator tied up the subject of brigalow lands with the Blowering dam. I was quite happy to leave the subject alone but one of the Government senators brought the matter up so I had to answer it, **Sir. The** proposal in this bill is that the Commonwealth should lend to the State of New South Wales half of the cost of the proposed works, that is, £11,000,000. The Government has been commended for providing this sum, but interest has to be paid by the State Labour Government and the loan has to be amortized ten years after the first payment by the Commonwealth with half-yearly repayments over a period of twenty years. I do not deny New South Wales its right to consideration, just as I have never denied the same right to Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia or even Tasmania. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator Cole: -- We do not get any. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- You have had it. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator Cole: -- We do not get any. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Of course you do. The Bell Bay project is one example. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- The Government sold it. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- The Government sold it, but Tasmania did have.it. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- We made a profit. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- At least Tasmania got something. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- No, we did not. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Tasmania had the works set up at Bell Bay. Let me proceed in my own inimitable way.I do not mind interruptions from the Government side, but I do not want them from this side of the chamber. I ask honorable senators to think of the State from which I come and the parsimonious attitude of the Commonwealth Government towards it. When they think of the extraordinary natural endowments of Queensland, they must realize how parsimonious and mean the Commonwealth Government has been to the State. Everything that has been taken from the Government has had to be gouged from it by electoral blackmail. Reference was made to beef roads. the PRESIDENT.- Order! **Senator, are** you coming back to the subject of the Blowering dam? {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Yes. This bill relates to a loan to a State and I am entitled to draw parallels, I think, **Sir.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- You must connect your remarks with the bill. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- I will not make my remarks too wide; they will be near enough to the Blowering dam. But I will make them in my own way. We are talking about irrigation and I will get back to that subject. I remind the Senate that not one penny has been provided by the Commonwealth Government for the development of the Burdekin River and the Fitzroy River and its tributaries in Queensland. When honorable senators think of the Murrumbidgee, the Murray, the Snowy and the Tumut rivers and the tremendous sums that have been spent by way of Commonwealth grants and loans, they should realize how mean and paltry the Commonwealth Government has been to my State. Government supporters should realize that the future of Australia lies not necessarily south of the New South Wales-Queensland border. In the light of the tenseness of the international position we must face up to our responsibility, not only to develop the north of Australia but also to settle it. The only way that can be done is to develop the resources of this area similar to the way in which this bill provides for the development of the area to which it applies. There is justification for establishing the Blowering dam, for using the water that it will supply and developing the land that will be irrigated by that water. The Government is to be commended for providing for this loan to New South Wales. It is long deferred. I will not apportion blame for that. I have heard it said on this side of the chamber that New South Wales was entitled to this Commonwealth assistance, and I have heard Government supporters say that New South Wales has denied its contractual obligations and not fulfilled them up to the present. At least this legislation provides a solution to the problem. The Blowering dam is part and parcel of the Snowy Mountains scheme. I listened to the Minister delivering his secondreading speech, in which he mentioned two types of farms. He talked first of farms and then referred to "horticultural farms". I find it difficult to differentiate between the two. To me, farms are farms whether they produce agricultural products, like lucerne, or any other product, but when we carefully peruse the second-reading speech of the Minister we find that he makes a differentiation. He told us that there was a contractual obligation to provide so many farms, and then went on to refer to the obligation to provide horticultural farms. I do not know what flowers are to be grown there. However,' I commend the Government for finally meeting the demand for the establishment of the Blowering dam. It cannot be denied that this extension of the Snowy Mountains scheme is justified. The Government has recognized that fact. The very fact that the Government has poured £219,000,000 into the Snowy scheme since 1949 for the production of water to irrigate land and produce power is proof that the Government realizes the importance of the scheme. But surely this development should not be restricted to this particular area. Surely this is an example of what can be done in other parts, particularly when Queensland is crying out for finance to establish dams similar to the Blowering dam. You, **Sir, coming** from the country as you do, and loving the soil, know that Australia is dependent on primary production. Honorable senators in this chamber are aware that employment is dependent on our secondary industry, but that our standard of living in Australia is not dependent on our secondary industry. It depends on primary production. Where do our overseas credits come from? {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- Hear, head {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Do not say " Hear, hear" or I will tell you how you vitiate that principle. Do not tempt me to go into that. Let me finish my story in my own way. It is not merely a story - it will be history. The position is that the standard of living of Australia depends on the sale of our primary products and the establishment of credit overseas. It will continue to depend upon those sales for many years to come; that is inevitable. Anyone who has studied the position, who knows the story and is acquainted with the low cost of production in secondary industry overseas must realize that we cannot sell many of our secondary products overseas, but must depend on selling our primary products at a satisfactory price. Our standard of living I repeat, depends on our primary production, but Incidentally, although .there has been an increase In our primary production the income of primary producers has not increased substantially. The only way that we can increase our credit overseas is to increase primary production. That can be done only by introducing greater efficiency into the industry. We must increase the facilities that make for greater production. What are these facilities? Irrigation, a greater utilization of the soil, a greater variety of cultivation, a greater variety of crops and a more intensive investigation of land utilization. As a result of this legislation the Government is accomplishing something, however paltry, but it has not the greatness of vision that we should have in the leaders of a nation that is among the twelve great trading nations. If the Government were to face up to its responsibility I am certain that the Leader of the Opposition would pay tribute to it for anything worthwhile that it might accomplish. He has never -been mean in his praise, nor has he been hesitant in his condemnation of the Governments' faults, which are many. He has pointed them out very clearly, just as 1 have done. There is no reason why the Government should not continue to do worthwhile things like the one it is doing, in a small way, by this bill. If it does so we will give it the credit and the commendation that will be its due. It should realize that this project is just part and parcel of the developmental needs of other parts of Australia. If the Government realizes how much needs to be done in Queensland the Opposition will give it even greater commendation, all Queenslanders will pay it tribute, and in due course all Australians will be grateful to it. {: #subdebate-17-0-s6 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania .- We have been forced to listen to a tirade of words of which the honorable senator's party, the Senate and the whole nation should be thoroughly ashamed. **Senator Dittmer** descended to irrelevancies in the discussion of a bill that deals with one of the greatest national projects in Australia and makes a contribution to national development. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1019 {:#debate-18} ### ADJOURNMENT The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alistair McMullin).** - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - That the Senate, do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 October 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1963/19631009_senate_24_s24/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant