P-NG In Latest Budget

No Worries For Money-Happy P-NG In Latest Budget

From Judy Tudor in Port Moresby

Public galleries were packed with eager or apprehensive citizens half an hour before Papua-New Guinea Treasurer, Mr. A. P. J. Newman, delivered his 1965-1966 Budget at 8 p.m. on August 24. But what he had to say isn’t going to hurt anyone in this money-happy Territory very much.

TERRITORIANS, like Australians, will lose more out of their pockets this year but only about £820,000 more in actual increases in direct and indirect taxation. The rest of an estimated £3 million in crease in internal revenue will come as a natural growth.

This coming year public revenue for P-NG will be made up of:

This gives a total of £51,170,000 to which can be added another £15,000,000 which the Common wealth contributes through directly financed activities such as Common wealth Departments and other instru mentalities.

With a grand total of over £6O million in the community purse, it is clear that for another year, at least, P-NG will float along in the economic heaven to which it has be come accustomed.

Increased Taxes

The Budget speech outlined tax increases only in general terms.

Specific increases to various items will be the subject of legislation later in the session.

The largest revenue increase will come from revised import duties.

This is expected to yield £460,000.

“The new varied tariff structure,” said Mr. Newman, “will ensure an equitable contribution by all income earners.”

An additional excise on cigarettes has been in operation since July 1 and is expected to yield £90,000; excise on local beer will also be in creased to bring in much more (See p. 129). Increased postal and tele phone charges will produce £90,000; and income tax rates will go up in line with the recent increase in Aus tralia (2i per cent.) and result in £BO,OOO more revenue in a full year.

The Treasurer gave warning that work was in hand on other income tax measures to be introduced at some future time which will catch the lower income groups (mostly native), who now escape making a direct contribution to revenue.

Development, He Says

The overall object of the 1965-66 Budget, said Mr. Newman, was to follow the World Bank recommenda tions that emphasis should be placed on economic development “with a restricted approach to other spheres”.

In line with this intention, £IOO,OOO has been earmarked for the establishment of a Territory Develop ment Bank.

Allocation for capital construction is close to £l2 million—half of it to go on architectural works (which usually means more houses and offices); and another £5 million on engineering works.

But in spite of these brave pro visions, the other figures quoted by the Treasurer are nothing like so encouraging and present a pretty well-known and tried Territory budgetary picture.

A huge slice of planned spending (61.39 per cent.) will go on depart mental expenditure—£l6,sßl,6oo on salaries alone.

It is intended to recruit a further 490 expatriate officers, with all the consequential costs involved (includ ing anew rash of hideous high cost housing at Boroko). If these recruit ment figures are realised, it will put the total in the public service, indigenous and expatriate officers, at over 18,000.

Although development plans call for expert staff, the size and scope of the P-NG public service begins to look less than ever like one that an aspiring but backward self-governing country could possibly afford.

Nor does the present P-NG trade pattern look any more digestible.

Imports rose by 24 per cent, in

1964-65 over the previous year a huge, all-time record £43,400,000, Exports rose also, 20 per cent., but produced an exj income valued at only £24,580,C leaving a trade deficit of nearly million.

While Australia pours in & bounty, these extraordinary trac figures are possible but there: certainly no indication in these,, in this year’s Budget, or in anytW else in this country, that P-NG getting any closer to the point wH it can tear itself away from / tralia’s apron strings.

In short, what Mr. Newmi Budget adds up to is that in next year, despite depressed prices; some export commodities, there

£ Commonwealth grant .. 31,000,000 Internal revenue . .. 17,090,000 Loan monies 3,080,000

oing to be a great deal of loose loney floating about in this Territory >r enterprising merchants and pro iders of services to pick up.

> ublic Service

Irdinance Disallowed

On August 25, the second day of ic Assembly’s Budget session, feel ig ran high in some sections of the buse, and Australia’s Territories [inister, Mr. C. E. Barnes, came in ir some personal abuse, when it was arned that assent to the Public Scr ee (P-NG) Ordinance had been with :ld. The ordinance had been passed I the House last February.

The ordinance was regarded as a alter of principle, more than as a ece of legislation—the principal be g that the House of freely elected embers was “responsible” in matters political importance.

The history behind the “shemozzle” gan last January when elected mem rs of the House tried to remove me of the control of the P-NG iblic Service from the Department Territories in Canberra to Port oresby.

When the Minister would not com omise, unofficial members forced jislation through the House provid y for an independent Public Service lard which, among other things, mid have the power to create or dis nd departments, control overseas :ruitment of officers, fix salary issifications and overseas allow ces.

Ordinances concerning the Terri y Public Service are among those it must have the assent of the Gov lor-General—and, in this case, this s been refused.

First Time

Disallowance of legislation that anated from the old Legco was linary enough, but this is the first ic that legislation from the House Assembly has been so treated.

Mr. Ian Downs, member for the ihlands (Special) electorate, said t the Minister responsible for the ird stage of this foolish act” should “transferred to some other task t requires less brains.”

Mr. Don Barrett, member for ist Gazelle (Special), said that lough the legislation was said to 'e been thrown out for technical sons, the real reason for its rejec i was that the Territories Depart nt was loath to give up any of its ver.

Mer members feared for the

honour of the House, which they felt had been slighted; or believed that the eyes of the whole world were on Australia which would now be “discredited” for not living up to the principle of allowing the Territory people a dominant voice in their own affairs.

To make the pdl easier to swallow, the Minister has now stated that the Australian Government is willing to consider changes in existing arrangements to provide for Territory opinion to be taken into consideration when significant discussions on the Territ°ry Public Service are being undertal g n - . , ' He suggested a committee of two elected members of the Administrator’s S' o^ Cll ? ieml ? er representing the P-NG Administration and one member representing the Territories Dea j| ■ a A/T !t was said Mr Downs, just somehke this that members had asked for m January—only to be met f b , y the uncompromising attitude of the Minister. The result was that they

were forced into making the amend ments that now made the ordinance unacceptable to the Australian Gov ernment.

Dr. John Gunther, Assistant Ad ministrator (Services), in a we-told you-so statement, went only part of the way towards smoothing ruffled feathers. He said that the legislation was a hastily created piece of work that was bad legislation from the start; that official members had begged unofficial members to hold their hands in February but they would not. Asa result they had got a piece of legislation that was un workable. Nonetheless, if thev re fleeted, they would see that they had actually got what they wanted—a committee that could take cart in deliberations on the public service. say what was pretty obvious: That while the Australian Government still provided 60 per cent, of the Territory’s revenue it naturally wanted to control the prime instru ment for spending it.