COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
D SPEECH BY
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT MENZIES,
D M. P
ON
I DAPPROPRIATION BILL 1963-64.
Second Reading.
( BUDGET DEBATE.)
[ From the " Parliamentary Debates," 27th August, 1963.]
Sir ROBERT MENZIES '( Kooyong-
Prime Minister) [ 8.341.-Mr. Speaker, my
purpose to-night is to deal with the amendment
to the motion for the second reading
of this bill submitted by the Leader of the
Opposition ( Mr.' Caiwell), which constitutes
a motion of no confidence in the Government.
After all, as we have already indicated,
that-exposes the Government at once
to the risk of defeat. Therefore, it is proper
that I deal with the matter. In order to
remove any anxieties, perhaps I should make
it quite clear that we-propose to vote against
the amendment. I think that is fair enough.
8444/ 63. I do not propose, Sir, to duplicate what
has been said already-and said very wellby
a number of honorable members on my
side of the House. I would like to begin
quietly, as I hope to continue, by mentioning
that one of the remarkable things about
my distinguished opponent's speech was that
two of the Opposition's earlier cries were
-abandoned. It is worth recording them so
as to accord them, as it were, the proper
o~ bsequies. First of all, we were accustomed
over quite a period to being told by the
Opposition that we had ruined the loan
inarket. , That is very interesting. When the
loan market was a little sluggish, the Opposition
explained that this was due to want
of confidence in the Government. This
capacity on the part of the Opposition,
driven desperately by so many years in the
wilderness, to have a bit each way fascinates
me. The Opposition said that we had
ruined the loan market. Now, it has to
concede that the loan market was never
heavier, never more successful. Opposition
members said that they would restore the
loan market by lower interest rates. We
did that. We restored the loan market and
then we reduced the long-term bond rate.
And the loan market still was tremendously
healthy. All I can hope is that the subscribers
to Commonwealth loans issued on
behalf of the States will continue to express
their discontent with the Government in the
same fashion.
The second allegation that is worthy of
passing thought, Sir, is that by dropping
import licensing we imperilled our overseas
balances. I remember listening in this
House time after time to Labour leadershonorable
members opposite have never had
fewer than three or four at a time-saying,
Look at the overseas balances you
inherited from us and see how ' they have
fallen When we got rid of import licensing
for all practical purposes, we were told
that we had taken the opportunity to destroy
our overseas balances. At 30th June, the
overseas balances of this country stood at
œ E626,000,000 of gold and foreign exchange,
plus an International Monetary Fund drawing
right of 223,000,000. If this be the
ruination of our overseas funds, we must
have the dictionary re-written.
11 just mention those things very quietly,
Sir, because I think that, in order to observe
continuity in politics, some of those who
were not here at the time ought to know
the kind of things that have been said by
their leaders. I now pass on from that. I
know that some of the things I shall say
have already been said extremely well, but
I just want to make my own speech on this
subject as head of the Government that is
under censure.
Time after time in his speech, the Leader
of the opposition made allegations of dishonesty.
This is one of his favourite words.
When I hear it from him, I take it seriously.
if I heard it from somebody else, I would
ignore it. We heard from the honorable gentleman repeated allegations of dishonesty.
Yet the central allegation that appeared
time after time in his speech was itse'
completely dishonest. That allegation wa.
that my colleague, the Treasurer ( Mr.
Harold Holt), speaking on behalf of the
Government, proposes a deficit of
œ 300,000,000 and that this deficit-he kept
on repeating it-contains the seeds of inifl
tion. That statement was clearly, de,.
liberately, repeatedly and grossly dishonest.
We might as well have the facts out on
this. He is not going to accuse us of dishonesty
and escape from these perfectly
clear statements about his own attack. I
will come back to this in a moment and
demonstrate -it, chapter and verse, but,
before I do that, let me just continue with
these rather agreeable, pleasant rzemarks.
It is only a few months ago that the
Leader of the Opposition was preaching depression
and stagnation. All of us w
were here remember that, do we noFt
spoke about these things so yearningly that
I almost believed he wanted them. Perhaps
he did. He spoke about depression and
stagnation. Now he invents a œ 300,000, OQ.
deficit with, as he pointed out, increase
expenditure but no increased taxation,
he says now-or he did the other daythat
this means a period of boom and bust.
I use his own somewhat sculptural expression.
To meet this, he wants largely increased
expenditure to increase basic
demand. That is what he called it. Apart
from altering the graph of income tax to
increase the burden upon those earning over
œ 1,200 a year, which is the average wage
earning of to-day--will say something
about that in a moment because I want to
keep the best till the last-he wants to reduce
revenues from pay-roll tax, from petrol tax
-1 need not go through the whole listbut
he would increase expenditure on homes,
on education, on defence and on northern
development. This is a curious thing. He
says this is a policy of boom and bust, that
we are in for a deficit of œ 300,000,000,
which he knows is completely untrue and
which the Treasurer made it perfectly clear
was untrue.
Having said that, what does he do about
it? If this contains the seeds of inflation,
then obviously the revenues ought to be up,
and, or, the expenditures ought to be down;
because he finds in a deficit of œ 300,000,000
all the seeds of inflation. What is his cure?
It is to increase the expenditures and reduce
the revenues. Sir, this is almost incredible.
.\ am perfectly certain . that if all the electors
Australia could hear this statement, and
think about it, they would refuse to entrust
their fortunes to a prospective Prime Minister
with these astonishing ideas.
Before I pass on from that, I want to say
7 word about what he proposes to do about
-defence. He wants more money spent on
defence. I took an extract from his speech,
and I propose to read it out. This is a
puzzle. Even a quiz competitor might be
hard put to it to explain this-
We will not pretend,-
said the honorable gentlemanas
this Government does, that the national interest
is served by a system of down payments on the
instalment plan for weapons and equipment which
may be delivered anything from one to five years
hence and which, when delivered, are obsolete or
obsolescent.
7rihis statement caught my ear at once. I
asked myself: " What does the Leader of
the Opposition mean by that? Has he discovered
some profound means by which
you can go and buy the latest weapons and
"" he latest aircraft off the hook? If he has,
-J would appeal to him as a somewhat
occulting friend of mine to tell me the
secret. Oh," he says, " you must not buy
them on down payments; you must not buy
them on the instalment plan Is he really
innocent enough to think that you can get
a' replacement fighter or a replacement
bomber or a reconnaissance plane by going
along to a shop and buying it? That, I
thought, of all the things he said, was the
most fantastic. Having looked at it, I concluded
that, as he has a rather attractive
sense of humour from time -to time, I must
regard this as a sort of beau geste on his
part. To sum all that up, let us put it in
this way: His cure, and therefore presumably
the cure of his party, for a boom is
to have a bigger one, and the right way to
avoid worrying about a bust is to make it a
stone certainty.
Now let me come back to this famous
œ 300,000,000 deficit. I ask all honorable
members to think about it quite seriously.
If the honorable gentleman knows anything
about these matters-and he should by now
-he knows that the estimated cash deficit
is œ 58,000,000, and he knows that, on all
former occasions, acting on the old system of presenting the accounts in terms of cash
results, this is a substantial deficit, th6ughi
not the biggest one that we have ever
budgeted for. The Treasurer explained this,
I thought, in the simplest terms, and, of
course, the figures establish it.
In past years--and I say this for the oenefit
of anybody who may not have followed
these rather recondite Treasury problems,
although the honorable gentleman opposite,
of course, is familiar with them-revenue
and loan items have been added together,
revenue and loan or capital expenditures
have been added together, we have subtracted
one from the other and a cash result
has been brought out. Under that system
we determined that the cash deficit would
be X or Y or Z. This year, we happen to
have adopted the system which has applied
-I think I am ' right, Mr. Treasurer-for a
long time in Great Britain, where all of
what we call the revenue and expenditure
items are put above -the line and the capital
items below the line. Adopting that
system and assuming that we do not borrow
a shilling on behalf of the States, there is a
deficiency of œ 358,000,000. But because
we know that, on behalf of the States, we
will borrow large sums of money from the
-public on the loan market, we make an
estimate of the amount involved. The
Treasurer estimated it-he cannot be precise
at this stage-at œ 300,000,000. So you
have a deficit of œ 358,000,000. You set off
against that the œ 300,000,000 which you
anticipate borrowing from the public-all
on behalf of the States, mark you-and the
deficit in cash of œ 58,000,000. The Leader of
the Opposition knows that. It was explained
with the utmost clarity in the Budget speech.
Why does he now seek to deceive the public
by talking about a record deficit of
œ 300,000,000? That he has set out to
deceive the public appears from his own
speech. It is sometimes useful to quote
your opponent, so I will weary the House
by reading two or three passages from his
speech. He said-
Thus, we have the spectacle of a Treasurer who
poured ridicule on the Opposition" s policy, in
1961, of running a deficit of œ 100,000,000--
Labour proposed a cash deficit of
œ 100,000,000 in four or five months, which
was equal to œ 300,000,000 in a yearhimself
proposing a deficit of mote than
œ 300,000,000 nearly three years later when, as far
as he is concerned, the unemployment problem
has been solved.
Here is a deliberate falsification. Here is a
comparison of a cash deficit of œ 100,000,000
and the œ 300,000,000 deficit in this Budget,
which represents a cash deficit of only
œ 58,000,000. The people of Australia
deserve better treatment than that. They
do not deserve to be deceived in this
fashion. Plunging further, the honorable
gentleman went on to say-
In our view, this increase of over œ 200,000,000
represents the cumulative results of the disastrous
policy of too little too late--
The honorable gentleman is a master of the
clichewhic' he has followed ever since he and his
Government destroyed full employment and business
activity in November, 1960.
I hope it is clear to all who are listening
to me that here is a comparison between
two utterly different things. But the honorable
gentleman went on and stated-
And yet, in what is claimed to be a propitious
situation, the estimated budget deficit is the
greatest on record.
He knows that to be untrue, but although
he knows that he says-
Let me repeat. It is three times more than
that contained in Labour's policy speech
If the Treasurer's diagnosis is correct, then he is
being highly irresponsible. He is imperilling price
and cost stability because he lacks the courage--
Let me repeat for the benefit of all concerned
that I am quoting the words of the
Leader of the Labour Partyto
raise taxes to at least match the extra expenditure
he is budgeting for.
I say no more about that. I regard this as
a rather unsavoury episode and I apologize
for having had to take up so much time to
expose it.
I will go on with the author-if he is the
author-of the motion of no confidence in
the Government. He might say that this
will be my last speech as Prime Minister.
No doubt that is the expectation and therefore
I must deal with these matters. He
turned his attention to taxation. He said that
he would reconstruct the income tax system
to help the man receiving less than œ 24 a
week: I imagine from what he said that
he would like to save the man earning less
than œ 24 a week 5s. a week in tax. I point
out to honorable members that even that
saving would increase the tax paid by those
receiving more than œ 24 a week by an average of almost 10 per cent. I do not
think the honorable gentleman, or those
who advise him, has ever worked out th:-'
problem to discover how the break-up L
taxation in Australia occurs. There would
be an average increase of about 10 per cent.
The honorable gentleman might say,
Those who are receiving œ 26, œ 28, œ 30 or
œ 40 a week naturally would be required tI
pay only a nominal increase I wonder
what he would do when he reached those
income brackets upon which we rely so
much for investment and development in
Australia! He has not told us.
Then, hoping to strengthen his imperfect
story-the one on which we are to be
thrown out of office-the honorable gentleman
mentioned direct and indirect taxation.
He set out to convey the impression that
under my Government there was ' a trend to
increase indirect taxes and to reduce direc'
taxes. The honorable gentleman said, ThL
Labour Party when it comes to office" or
" if it comes to office have forgotten
which he said-" will reverse the trend towards
indirect taxes This is a beautiful
old argument. I have heard it all m,
political life. It is said that the hard shell--
tories or whatever we are called are the
boys who want to pile on the indirect taxes
because the ordinary fellow, the wageearner,
has to pay them, and they cut down
direct taxes, income tax ' and the like,
because the silver-tails will -get some benefit.
If the honorable gentleman wants a short
course in political history he might direct
himself to the facts. In 1948-49 he was a
Minister in the last Labour government.
Perhaps I could have said the latest Labour
government, but I will call it the last. At
that time Labour was the master of all it
surveyed. It had a handsome majority in
the House of Representatives and a handsome
majority-at least a large one-in the
Senate. In 1948-49 direct taxes in Australia
were 56.6 per cent. of total taxes. Would
honorable members be good enough to carry
that figure in their minds? When we came
into office-about half-way through the
financial year 1949-50 and after the Budget
had been established-the proportion was
55.2 per cent. In 1961-62 the trend about
which the honorable gentleman ! has complained
had been so reversed under my
Government that the proportion of direct
taxes had risen from 55.2 per cent, of total
taxes to 59.9 per cent. In the financial year
"' vered by this Budget it is 59.5 per cent.
_ a it be well understood that under this
Liberal-Country Party Administration the
percentage of direct taxation has increased.
It has not fallen. The honorable gentleman,
having thought that he had something
-) complain about, now finds that the boot
ø on the other foot.
I pass from that. The Leader of the
Opposition has a thesis which, with great
respect to him, is self-contradictory. In
one breath he says that the Budget is potentially
inflationary. His own expression was
that it contained the seeds of inflation
because there was a huge deficit. In the
next breath he says that the Budget, although
potentially inflationary, will fail to restore
a strong basic demand. With great respect,
I say that he cannot be right both ways. If
~ is right in thinking that the Budget is
ationary, then, of course, demand will
expand excessively in relation to supply.
But if what he calls basic consumer demand
lags, then there can be no inflation unless,
of course, there is some cost inflation by
raising of costs in spite of the relative
Ability, or the almost absolute stability, of
the consumer price index.
Then he went on to say that nothing has
been done to restore the purchasing power
of ordinary people. This is a time-honoured
argument. I am happy to say that we have
been put into office and kept in office for a
long time by ordinary people-and ordinary
people who are not fools. Let us have a
look at the facts again. I apologize if I am
repeating things infinitely well known to
honorable members, but they deserve to be
brought together. Just now I mentioned
the consumer price index which is the most
modern index of what I will call the cost
of living. -It rose by 0.2 per cent.-that is
a negligible fraction of a fraction-last year.
But the wages and salaries paid in Australia
in this time of terrible depression increased
by œ 210,000,000, or 6 per cent., compared
with 2 per cent. in the previous year. This
is worth noting. In the March quarter
of this year, with a stable consumer price
index figure, average weekly earnings
increased by 2.5 per cent.-in one quarter.
These are not my figures; these are the
figures of the Commonwealth Statistician
who stands outside controversy and outside
bias. The gross national product-rose. in
1962-63-the last financial year which
finished on 30th June-by 8 per cent. The
consumer price index was static. The gross
national expenditure-that is to say, the
total market value of goods and services
bought for use in the Australian economy
-increased by œ 752,000,000,. or 10 per
cent., in a dead year. Remember that I said
the honorable gentleman talked about
restoring consumer demand. Here you
have the gross national expenditure rising by
10 per cent., with the cost-price level
reflected in the consumer price index
remaining stable. Personal consumption
rose by: œ 245,000,000, or 5 per cent. Private
fixed capital expenditure rose by 13 per
cent., including an 8 per cent. increase on
dwellings, and was 4 per cent, higher than
any previous rise in our history. We all
ought to be crying ourselves to sleep when
we contemplate these figures. The number
of houses and flats approved in July this
year was 9,465; in the same month last year
the number was 8,200; and in July the previous
year the number was 7,000. This is
a tremendous symptom of development.
Since honorable gentlemen ' opposite
ohoose to concentrate their fire on the
question of employment of people, I point
out that in the last financial year the total
numbers actively employed in Australia rose
by 100,000. This is where we all are supposed
to get down and weep and persuade
people that misery is on hand, that disaster
is about us and that there is a sluggish
economy. But, of course, I am wrong. I
apologize to the Leader of the Opposition
because, although I have dealt with one of
his remarks-that there is a sluggish
economy-I am bound to say that on the
other hand he had a saving bet on the seeds
of inflation. I leave it to him.
I want to turn away from that and say
something very briefly about northern
development. I would have said more
about this, perhaps, if it were not for the
fact that my colleague, the Minister for
Territories ( Mr. Hasluck), in the course of
this debate, made what I venture to describe
as an extremely brilliant speech on this
matter-a speech which I hope will be read
and circulated very widely in this country.
I gather that the Opposition wants a committee
or a commission. Before we came
into' office, the Labour Party established a
committee of Ministers from the Commonwealth,
Queensland and Western Australia,
with a committee of officials, to have a look
at these matters. I have noticed that there
has been some controversy on some television
session; but I have made inquiries
from impartial people as to the records in
my own department. I find that the committee
of Ministers last met in 1947 and
that the committee of officials last met in
February, 1948. After all, we did not come
in till 19th December, 1949. What came
of it? They thought it was a good idea. It
might very well have been one. I do not
discuss it. But what came of it, apart from
tax zoning? If I give that in, what came
of it? I do not know.
We have gone about northern development
in a practical way. We have collaborated
with the Queensland and Western
Australian governments and with private
enterprise. By so doing we have helped in
the most spectacular and valuable northern
development in our history. In discussions
of this kind projects have been selected.
They have been selected by governments.
After all, governments have the responsibility
of performance; do not forget that.
These projects have been discussed by
governments as priority matters calculated
to improve Australian commodity trade
balances, to increase exports and to save
imports. It is a pretty practical and effective
system, Sir, which produces in our own
time the great mineral developments, cattle
roads development, water storage, irrigation,
railway works in the north and so on.
I will not bother about giving an
exhaustive list of these things.
Mr. O'Brien.-Oil.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-Yes, oil.
Mr. O'Brien.-You put it there, did you?
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-No, but we
did what you did not do; we gave material
help in the search for it. All I need to say
because i am not going to repeat what
has been said by my colleague-is: What
do the people want-committees or results?
I want to talk about my last topic with
some particularity because it has been the
subject of a very intensive campaign. The
newspapers of 19th August contained an
advertisement published by the Victorian Teachers Union of 22,000 teachers. It is
very much in line with some of the things
that I have heard from teachers in t)'
House. I would like to read the advertis.
ment. It is always a risk to do these things,
but I will accept the risk. This is a large
and costly advertisement and it contains
explicitly and implicitly allegations which I
propose to deal with and to denounce. I
there be no mistake about this. Tvl
advertisement reads-
In 1945 Mr. R. G. Menzies, speaking in Parliament
on the problems of State schools--
This is 1945 when a Labour government
was in office and I was Leader of the
Oppositionsaid-And I am quoted in bits-
" The Commonwealth must in my opinion give
aid to the States. Whatever State Ministers
of Education may say about what they would,
like to do, there is a sharp limit to tb'
resources." Now, after fourteen years of offi,
Sir Robert Menzies-
I was promoted in the meantimehas
yet to fulfil this promise. The situation in
the State schools has become far more serious,
yet they still do not receive any Federal A'
whatsoever. This aid is essential-to provide a,
quate classrooms, equipment and playgrounds, to
reduce the size of classes and to increase the
number-To increase the number mind youof
trained teachers. Yet Mr. Holt's
Budget gave no direct aid to State primary,
secondary and technical schools.
Leave the Treasurer out of it for the
moment; this is mostly about me-
The schools need more money. Your children's
future depends on it.
That is signed " A public statement in education
week from the Victorian Teachers
Union of 22,000 teachers The reference
to 22,000 teachers has a slight suggestion
of pressure about it. Speaking for myself,
I can resist nothing as well as that kind of
pressure. I hesitate to believe that that advertisement
represented the views of very many
of the Victorian teachers.
Mr. Barnard.-You should have been at
the conference in Melbourne.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-I know all
about that. I know that the honorable
member is a teacher. I understand his
point of view. But I am speaking here
to-night as a man who has done more for
education than any other Prime Minister
the history of this country. The
lctorian Teachers Union advertisement
quoted what I said in 1945-a time when
a . Labour government gave tax reimbursements
to the States amounting in total to
,34,800,000. That same government con-
) ued in office for some years but made
. provision in its budgets to subsidize or
to underwrite State loan raisings, which
were, incidentally, among other things for
school buildings. Not a penny!
Mr. Reynolds.-There was no need to
underwrite them.
Sir ROBERT MENZIES.-You are talking
about fairly small matters. The tax
reimbursement to the States was
œ 34,800,000 but the fact is-and you cansqueak
your way out of it-that at that
_-Ane and until we came into office not one
shilling was found out of . the Commonwealth
Budget to supplement -loan raisings
for the States'. programmes, including their
programmes of works for education. Also,
was a period in which the Common-
_, ealth Government made no special grants
to the States for universities or teaching
hospitals. What is the position to-day. I want to
say this as one who is supposed to have
forsworn what he said in 1945: The tax
reimbursement to the States, as even honorable
members opposite must know,
materially enables the States to pay their
running education costs because it includes
a calculation for growing population. The
tax reimbursement has increased from
œ 34,800,000 in 1945 to œ 318,400,000. That
is something worth thinking about-an
increase from œ 34,000,000 to œ 318,000,000
under our Government. The tax reimbursement
is now called financial assistance
grant, but it is the same thing. The effect
of this generous treatment of the States in
revenue and loans-it was generous; it went
beyond any formula that had ever been
devised in the time of the Labour Government-
has been that whereas the States
spent on education in 1950-51, just after
we came to power, an amount of
œ 46,000,000, in 1960-61 they spent
œ 184,000,000, and I would think that this
year they will spend something more than œ 200,000,000. That . represents ; an enormous
increase. Sir, it is a very strange performance for
a teachers' -spokesman to assume that . Commonwealth
. payments to the . States : contain
no education aid. All along ,. we : have
exceeded the Chifley formula -by supplementary
grants. In 1959 when -my colleagues
the Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr.
McEwen) and the Treasurer were . at the
Australian Loan Council and the Premiers'
Conference we agreed to a greatly
liberalized formula, and an important factor
in all this was population and, therefore,
school needs. Over the past thirteen years
we have provided something that was aiever
provided before in the time of the Labour
government. ' We have provided . a grand
total of œ 801,000,000 for State loan works
over and above actual loan raisings. In
1945 such assistance was unknown. I
repeat: Over a period of thirteen years we
have provided œ 801,000,000. I say without
any fear whatever that but for those
actions on our part State expenditure on
schools and school equipment would have
been immeasurably less than it was. Yet
I am to be told that we have done nothing.
I can understand some people who are not
fully aware of these matters falling into the
error of repeating that falsehood, but I can
neither understand nor forgive people who
know about them who will repeat it.
Our performance in relation to universities
is well known. I will not rehearse it.
When I originally spoke about this matter
. in the House and -announced that the
Government would adopt the Murray ' com-
ø mittee's report our action was hailed by the
then Leader of the Opposition as munificent
-those were his very words-and indeed,
so it was, and it was proper.-The setting
up of the Murray committee, the adoption
of its report, the application of that report
to the Australian Universities Commission,
the introduction of a system of triennial
grants, the inclusion of teaching hospitals
-a very great development-the establishment
of the tertiary education committee,
which is now sitting and which I hope will
report before long and which includes in
. its scope all tertiary forms of training,
including technological training-all these
things we have done, but according to the
advertisement we have done nothing. I
must have misunderstood English when I
was taught it at school.
The-Premiers had an extraordinary conference
in February, 1963. On that occasion
the Premier of New South Wales, Mr.
Hefron, a man whose interest in education
and service to its cause I tremendously
admire-he has done a great deal for education-
submitted a proposition once more
that a special grant, not part of the general
grant to -the States, should be earmarked
for education and that a special inquiry
should be held. The Acting Premier of
Victoria, at that conference, said that what
Victoria wanted was general assistance to
the State budget so that-I quote his
words-" we can retain the right to control
education within our own budget".
Mr.. Pizzey, of Queensland, a greatly
respected member of the Queensland Government,
agreed. He said, " We do not
favour a special grant Sir Thomas
Playford agreed. My old friend does not
always agree. But he agreed on this
occasion. The Premier of Western Australia
repeated that whatever provision
there was should be a part of the general
grant. That was the state of mind of
the clear majority of the Premiers.
I have been speaking about the meeting in
February, 1963. Then there was a normal
meeting in June' of this year, when my two
colleagues were present and I was out of
the country-perhaps fortunately, but I
do not know. My colleagues made an
arrangement with the States for substantial
increases in the provision to the States.
Mark you, Mr. Speaker, this was done
after the education discussion in February,
1963, with the Premiers. They had said
then, when this matter was very much in
their minds, " We want a little more on
our general grants so that we can cope
with the problem, of State education"
Later substantial increases were made.
The financial assistance grants to the
States were increased by œ 14,000,000. I
will just give the actual increase. Considering
that these grants had risen before,
this was a big sum. The grants to the
two claimant States went up by œ 200,000.
That is nothing much. The additional
assistance grants, which were special, went up by œ 2,500,000. There was other
assistance of a revenue nature which went
up by œ 1,700,000. The States works a'
housing allocation went up by œ 17,000, L,,,
and other assistance of a capital nature
went up by œ 6,300,000. These two later
items add up to œ 23,300,000 in one year,
and if the first group I gave is added the
total relevant improvement in the positi
of the States in one year was œ 41,700,00i,:
I have not included any federal aid roads
grants or anything of that kind. Some
of this œ 41,700,000 would include provision
for schools and equipment, because
the education votes of the States have
become so large.
The only other thing I want to say is
by way of confirming what I have just
said. Under present arrangements-all
made since my 1945 speech and sinc,
the 1949 election-the States have be,
able to quadruple their expenditure on
education. The proportion of their capital
expenditure devoted to educational purposes,
such as school buildings, rose from
6 per cent. in 1949 to ' 20 per cent. j-
1961-62. It is probably a little mo
now. There was a reference in the'
advertisements to teachers. In 1951, in
government schools, there were 36,000
full-time teachers and there were sixteen
teachers' colleges. In 1961, after this socalled
miserable default of mine in relation
to education, there, were not 36,000
full-time teachers by 63,700. There were
19,000 teachers in training and instead
of sixteen teachers' colleges there were 28.
This, I venture to say, could be better.
Everything could be better. But there is
no case for a condemnation of our
approach. On the contrary, there is conclusive
proof that we have responded
actively to the claims of education-claims
which I profess to understand as well as
any other man in this place.
I conclude by saying that this advertised
propaganda is badly informed, is
inaccurate and, what is worse, is grossly
unfair.
By Authority: A. J. ARTHUR, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra.