Embarrassing Surplus in

New Guinea Pertinent Questions and a Grim Answer

WHEN Mr. F. H. G. Simcocks, who had been Acting Treasurer in New Guinea for the past year, arrived in Sydney on March 17 he made statements to re porters about the finances of the Terri tory which apparently caused the Com monwealth Government some embarrass ment.

Mr. Simcocks (according to the news papers) said that the Territory faced the problem of having too much revenue — largely the result of the rapid develop ment of the goldmining industry. The Administration was spending this grow ing surplus on developmental works — last year it carried out an £BO,OOO works programme—but still the surplus grew.

At the end of the last financial period there was an actual surplus of £65,000.

Taxation had been reduced to a mini mum, and the agriculturists had been freed from taxes altogether.

The following day questions were asked in the Federal Senate. Senator E. B.

Johnston wanted to know whether there was not a 10 per cent, duty on mining machinery and a 5 per cent, royalty on gold production in New Guinea.

The question, of course, was inspired by the fact that certain large goldmining interests in New Guinea have been pro testing strongly about the taxes referred to by the Senator. The statement of Mr.

Simcocks provided those interests with useful ammunition.

Senator Sir George Pearce (Minister in Charge of Territories) said that Mr. Sim cocks’s statements were merely his per sonal opinions. Still, the taxes referred to by Senator Johnston would be ex amined.

The Opposition Leader (Senator J. S.

Ceilings) asked Sir George if he would consult with Mr. Simcocks with the ob ject of bringing about a similar excess of revenue in Australia.

Sir George Pearce (grimly); I do not propose to confer with Mr. Simcocks, but I can assure you that somebody else will.