Senate
26 September 1924
9th Parliament · 2nd Session
- QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PRINTING COMMITTEE
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- INCOME TAX COLLECTION BILL
- ENTERTAINMENTS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL
- DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGES BILL
- ADJOURNMENT
The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 11a.m., and read prayers.
page 4804
QUESTION
WRECK OFDOU GLAS MAWSON
Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES
-Has the Minister for Home and Territories any information to give to the Senate in regard to the steps taken by the Government, particularly from the land aide, to ascertain if white women are held by the blacks in the Northern Territory?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
– The honorable senator’s question, which suggests thatso far nothing has been done on the land side, reveals the state of mind into which some people have got in regard to this matter. As a matter of fact, whatever search has been conducted for the last month, has been made from the land side by a party landed from the steamer Huddersfield, and so far no trace of the womenhas been found. The schooner John Alce, which recently left Darwin for
Elcho Island, should have reached the island yesterday. She had a wireless operator on board, but so far no wireless message has reached Darwin. However, the schooner should return to Darwin by Tuesday or Wednesday next, when it will, no doubt, bring a report as to the success or otherwise of the search, which is being conducted by the land party. This party consists of twenty police and trained bushmen, and is accompanied by a number of black trackers. They are all thoroughly acquainted with the territory, and for the last fifteen or twenty years have been dealing with blacks. They are probably more competent to conduct this search than -would be any other twenty men in the Commonwealth whose services could be secured.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Can the Minister state approximately the distance between the last known location of the Douglas Mawson and the spot an thecoast of Arnhem Land wheresome wreckage waa found, and can he say whether there is any tangible evidence that this wreckage came from the missing vessel?
Senator PEARCE:
– As I announced in the Senate on a previous occasion, the Douglas Mawson, which was trading, not on the Northern Territory coast, but between certain Queensland ports, including Burketown, on the Queensland shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria, disappeared during a storm. The Queensland Government immediately sent out small auxiliary schooners of the same type as the John Alce andHuddersfield to search for the missing vessel, but they were unsuccessful in locating her in any part of the Gulf.Steamers trading along the coast were also asked to keep a lookout for her, but notone of them reported having seen any sign of the DouglasMawson. Twelve months after the disappearance of the vessel, it was announced that some wreckage had been seen on the north-east comer of the Northern Territory. Upon that announcement being made I instructed the Administrator of the Territory to arrange that when the regular trading schooner from Darwin passed that portion of the coast on her way to Borroloola she was to land two police troopers, accompanied by black trackers, who were to search the coast for any trace of wreckage. Those instructions were carried out. Some wreckage was found - some staves ofbeer barrels and some boards from deck combings - but there was absolutely nothing to identify it as wreckage from the Douglas Mawson. That vessel had some barrels of beer among her cargo, but vessels trading along that coast usually have. During that search no trace was found of any survivors from the wreck, and although the party came into contact with the natives by whom white women are now said to be held, those natives made no statement whatever to any member of the party, either troopers or blacktrackers, of having seen any survivors from the wreck. One of the troopers was Constable Green. It is now asserted in the press that this constable reported to the Administrator that he had heard that survivors had landed, but the Administrator denies having received such a report from Constable Green. The result of the investigations of the party was communicated to the Queensland Government, and there is in the Department of Home and Territories a letter from the Premier of Queensland thanking the Administrator of the Northern Territory for the careful search made. Later on, when Dr. Wade was pursuing his investigations into the possibilities of the occurrence of oil, and was proceeding down the coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria, a native in his employ came into touch with the natives by whom the white women are supposed to be held in captivity. From them he heard the story of the landing of survivors from the wreck, of the murder of the men, and of the capture of the women. That was the first time the story had ever been conveyed to white men, when it was told by the blacks with whom these white women are said to be held in captivity to a black boy in Dr. Wade’s party, and conveyed by him to Dr. Wade, and by the latter to the Administrator at Darwin.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– How long after the disappearanceof the Douglas Mawson?
Senator PEARCE:
– Speaking from memory, between eighteen months and two years.
page 4805
NORTHERN TERRITORY
Launch for Administrator
Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA
– Is it true, as stated in the press this morning, that repeated requests have been made to the
Government by those entrusted with the administration of the Territory for a vessel for use in a case of emergency, such as that referred to this morning and such as may arise at any time in the Northern Territory, and that such requests have always been refused by the Government?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– Requests have repeatedly been made by the Administrator for a launch to enable him to visit other parts of the Territory in the course of his administrative duties, and not for the purpose referred to by the honorable senator. For want of funds those requests have had to be turned down, but they have now been granted, and on the last Estimates provision was made for the necessary launch.
page 4805
QUESTION
RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Is it the intention of the Government to enter into a. reciprocal preferential tariff agreement with Canada in the near future?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– The Government is endeavouring to do so, and hopes to be able to make a satisfactory announcement in that regard before the end of the session.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Before any arrangement is concluded with Canada, will this Parliament have an opportunity to discuss it?
Senator PEARCE:
– Any arrangement arrived at with Canada must receive the endorsement of this Parliament.
page 4805
QUESTION
COMMONWEALTH BANK
Appointment op Directors.
Senator GARDINER:
– Is it not a fact that when the Commonwealth Bank Bill was before another place it was treated as a matter of urgency on the ground that it was necessary to bring its provisions into operation forthwith? Is it not also a fact that in the Senate it was stated that the passage of the bill was an urgent matter, so that credits might be advanced by the bank to enable woolbuyers to purchase Australian wool? What has happened since the passing of this bill that all the urgency has apparently disappeared, seeing that the board of directors has not yet been appointed ?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– The delay in the appointment of the board of directors of the Commonwealth Bank is due to, the desire of the Government to have absolutely the best possible board. Negotiations to that end must necessarily take a little time.
page 4806
PRINTING COMMITTEE
Senator Thompson brought up the fourth report of the Printing Committee.
page 4806
QUESTION
COMPULSORY VOTING
Senator GRAHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
Will he consider the advisability of causing electors to be reminded, by means of stamped or printed notices issued from the Electoral Department, of their obligation to record their votes at parliamentary elections?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– It is intended to give the fullest publicity to the compulsory voting provisions of the law, more particularly when the elections are approaching. The best means available will be adopted to this end.
page 4806
QUESTION
MANDATED TERRITORIES
Expenditure on Scientific and Medical Research.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
What is the amount of money expended by the Commonwealth Government in their Mandated Territories on scientific and medical research ?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– The information is being obtained, and will be made available as early as practicable.
page 4806
QUESTION
AMENDING TARIFF LEGISLATION
Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
Is it the intention of the Government to introduce amending tariff legislation during the present session to meet the demand for more effective protection in certain industries where the present tariff has proved entirely inadequate.
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– Senator Duncan, as an old Parliamentarian, is aware that it is not usual to announce matters of policy in answer to questions, particularly in relation to the tariff.
page 4806
QUESTION
HUME WEIR
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -
- Is it intended, as the result of a recent conference, to enlarge the foundations of the Hume Weir to allow for a 2,000,000 acre-feet conservation as against the proposal for one of 1,000,000 acre-feet?
- If not, is there a probability of this being done?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT
– At a recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in relation to the utilization of the Hume Reservoir for hydro-electric development and the desirability of increasing the capacity of the reservoir as at present designed, it was resolved to proceed with the construction of the Hume dam of sufficient dimensions to provide for a reservoir of 2,000,000 acrefeet, instead of 1,100,000 acre-feet as originally intended. The decisions arrived at by the conference were subject to confirmation by the four contracting Governments. Correspondence is now proceeding between the four contracting Governments in this connexion, and it is anticipated that finality will be arrived at in the near future.
page 4806
INCOME TAX COLLECTION BILL
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.
page 4806
ENTERTAINMENTS TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.
page 4806
DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL
In committee (Consideration resumed from 25th September, vide page 4759) :
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 -
– (1.) For the purposes of this act there shall be a Dairy Produce Control Board. (2.) The board shall consist of -
one member (in this act referred to as “the Government representative “) who shall be appointed by the Governor-General as the representative of the Commonwealth Government;
two representatives of each ofthe States of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, and one representative of each of the States of Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia elected by the boards of directors of co-operative butter and cheese factories in each of those States;
two representatives elected by the boards of directors of proprietary butter and cheese factories; and
one member appointed by the GovernorGeneral as the representative of persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth whether as agents or on their own account. (3.) The Governor-General shall not appoint, as the Government representative, any person who has submitted’ himself for, and failed to secure, election by the producers as a member of the board. (4.) The member appointed as the Government representative shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. (5.) The election of representatives in pursuance of paragraphs (b) and (c) of sub-section (2.) of this section shall be carried out in such manner as is prescribed. (6.) The member appointed in pursuance of paragraph (d) of sub-section (2.) of this section shall be appointed for a term of two years, but may be removed from office by the GovernorGeneral upon the recommendation of the board. (7.) Elected members of the board shall hold office for a period of two years and shall be eligible for re-election :
Provided that an elected member may be removed from office by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the board. (8.) On the death, resignation or removal from office of an elected member of the board, the Governor-General, may, on the recommendation of the board, appoint a person to hold the vacant office for the residue of the term of the elected member. (9.) The powers conferred on the board by this act shall not be affected by reason only of there being a vacancy in the membership thereof.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– I should like the Minister (Senator Wilson) to explain the difference between a co-operative factory and a proprietary factory within the meaning of this measure. Would a limited liability company consisting of “wet” and “dry” shareholders, which distributed its profits annually, be considered a co-operative or a proprietary factory ?
Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
. - A proprietary company is not conducted on a cooperative basis. A co-operative company distributes the whole of its profits amongst the suppliers.
Senator Foll:
– Some of the profits are placed to reserve.
Senator WILSON:
– Not necessarily.
Senator Thompson:
– Must all the shareholders in a co-operative factory be producers ?
Senator WILSON:
– Not necessarily.
Senator Thompson:
– That is the information I desire.
Senator WILSON:
– I move -
That the words “ South Australia,” in paragraph (b) of sub-clause 3, be left out.
South Australia does not export large quantities of butter. Many of the factories in that state are proprietary concerns. If the committee agree to the deletion of these words I then intend to move to insert a new paragraph ba to meet the peculiar position which exists in South Australia.
Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia
– If this amendment is agreed to a different system will apply in South Australia, and the whole principle of representation as contained in the bill will be altered. At present it is provided that there shall be two representatives of proprietary factories. The Minister has stated that there are more proprietary factories than co-operative concerns in South Australia. If the amendment is carried the proprietary factories will have three instead of two representatives as originally intended. My sympathies are entirely with co-operative factories.
Senator Thompson:
– Does the honorable senator regard a limited liability company as a proprietary concern?
Senator O’LOGHLIN:
– A proprietary company distributes its profits between certain individuals, whereas a cooperative company divides its profits between those who supply the factory. The board of control has been introduced mainly because the proprietary companies particularly those with London houses, have - been exploiting the dairy business, with the result that producers have not had fair treatment. The Minister’s proposal will have the effect of increasing the representation of proprietary factories. I am entirely opposed to that principle. The interests of the co-operative factories, which distribute the profits to their suppliers, should be safeguarded.
Senator REID:
Queensland
– I was under the impression that we were dealing with the dairying industry as a whole, and not with the interests of co-operative or proprietary factories. If a proprietary company is producing a good Australian article, why should its interests be jeopardized?
SenatorO’Loghlin. - The proprietary companies are already amply provided for in the bill.
Senator REID:
– I cannot understand why South Australian co-operative concerns should not have a representative on the proposed board.
Senator Wilson:
– In South Australia the proprietary companies largely outnumber the co-operative concerns.
Senator FOLL:
Queensland
.- I agree with the remarks made by Senator O’Loghlin. I understand that there is discussion at the present time between the directors of the proprietary butter factories and co-operative concerns with regard to representation on the proposed board. In South Australia the majority of butter factories are on the proprietary basis, and if the amendment be adopted, there will be an increase in the representation of those interests at the expense of the co-operative factories. I agree with Senator Reid that we should not be particularly concerned about that so long as by this legislation we benefit the producers of butter. About 75 per cent, or 80 per cent, of the butter factories in Australia are on the co-operative basis. If they are to have representation on the board in proportion to their numbers, the Minister should not now ask the committee to provide for another representative of the proprietary companies. As the amendment will materially alter the personnel of the board, I intend to vote against it.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– The amendment is in order. The figures disclose that in Australia there are about 370 co-operative and 123 proprietary butter factories. This really makes a case for another representative of the latter, and if the Minister moved to increase the representation of the proprietary butter factories, under paragraph c, I should support him. I do not feel disposed to vote for the amendment in its present form since it might result in depriving South Australia of representation.
Senator HOARE (South Australia) son) failed to furnish an adequate reason why South Australia should not have a representative of co-operative factories on the board, although he has suggested that it is because the majority of the factories in that state are proprietary concerns, and he intends in a subsequent amendment to provide for them. If his reasoning with regard to South Australia holds good, why not apply the same argument to Tasmania and Western Australia? South Australia exports more butter than is sent overseas from Western Australia. I am inclined to think that the representatives of the proprietary concerns like Sandford and Company and Wilcox and Company, who are exporters of butter in South Australia, have brought influence to bear upon the Minister. They waited upon the Labour representatives from that state with the same object, but were not successful.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– It is usual, in a measure like this, to be guided by the experience of those who are in the business, and by the special circumstances. In the framing of this measure the Government sought to give representation on the board to all the states on an equitable basis.
Senator O’Loghlin:
– Then why not leave it so.
Senator WILSON:
– In South Australia, 80 per cent, of the factories are proprietary concerns. If, as has been suggested, the representation of the proprietary factories were increased under paragraph e from two to three, South Australia would lose its direct representation on the board, and that is what we should avoid if possible. I approve of all cooperative effort, and have always played an active part in such enterprises.
SenatorO’Loghlin. - Till now.
Senator Gardiner:
– I thought the Honorary Minister was always acting.
Senator WILSON:
– I am not so good an actor as the honorable senator. The purpose of my amendment is to retain the representation for South Australia without increasing the membership of the board.
Senator Thompson:
– The object could be achieved by increasing the number of representatives under paragraph c.
SenatorWILSON. - On behalf of South Australia, I am not prepared to take any risks.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– I fail to see that any great harm will be done to South Australia if we strike out the proposal to give the co-operative factories in that state representation on the board. Actually, only three states - Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales - are seriously concerned in the bill. South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia do not engage in the export business to any extent. I am prepared to help the Minister to strike out the words “ South Australia.” That can be followed up by striking out the words “ Western Australia “ and “ Tasmania.” I think that those states are asking for too much. The Minister, Senator Wilson, says that there are more proprietary than co-operative companies in South Australia, and it might be as well to postpone the consideration of this clause to obtain confirmation of that statement. The proprietary companies should not have a prior claim over the co-operative companies to representation on the board. Although fewer in number, the cooperative companies may be representative of a much greater number of persons. I think- that our first consideration should be for the co-operative companies, and that we should give every encouragement we can to the co-operative movement. Co-operation has done, and will do, an immense amount of good for the dairying industry.
Senator HOARE:
South Australia
– Will the Minister agree to the insertion of the words, “ one of whom shall be from South Australia “ after the word “ factories “ in paragraph c of subclause 2?
Senator Wilson:
– I could not agree to that; it would cut out the co-operative companies.
Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia
– The bill is all right as it stands. I do not think that the Minister has the support of one South Australian representative in his proposal. The purport of the amendment is to increase the representation of the proprietary companies at the expense of the co-operative companies. Being larger in number, it is natural to expect that they will dominate the poll and secure the appointment of their’ nominee. The difference between proprietary and co-operative companies is that the latter represent the producers, who live by the industry, whilst the former live on what they can make out of the industry. The bill is presumably in the interests of the primary producers, and they are represented directly by the cooperative companies. I oppose the amendment.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It would be far better if the board were -elected directly by the primary producers. An unseemly struggle is taking place between the proprietary and the co-operative companies. We appear to be losing sight of the fact that we are discussing what is best for the primary producers of butter. The object of the bill is said to be to ensure that the men who are engaged in primary production shall get a better return for their labour than they are getting at the present time. I was surprised that Senator Findley should endeavour to foist upon the committeethe exploded idea that there is anything advantageous in cooperation. The co-operative societies in the butter industry to-day are almost innumerable, yet they are unable to conduct their businesses, and are forced to seek the support of the Commonwealth. That fact is sufficient to prove the inefficacy ofco-operation.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I point out to the honorable senator, and to other honorable senators, that the committee is considering the special circumstances of South Australia. The question is, “ that the words ‘ South Australia ‘ proposed to be left out, be left out.”
SenatorGRANT.- I should not mind if those words were left out, but I do not see why they should be. We should wipe out imaginary state divisions. Why do we not approach this matter from a purely Australian stand-point? For how. long are these miserablestate divisions to be allowed to rear their ugly heads in this Chamber ? The matter should be considered, not as it is likely to affect the proprietary companies or the co-operative companies, but in the light of what is best for butter production. I should like to place upon record an opinion regarding co-operation which would effectively silence senators like Senator Findley, and prevent attempts in future to foist upon this chamber such views as he holds on the subject. I remind him that cooperation has been a failure all the world over, and that it will never prove successful. I think that the whole position should be reviewed regardless of state boundaries, and the board be constituted on Australian lines.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I interjected innocently whilst Senator Wilson was speaking, and he became quite indignant and said that he was not as good an actor as I was. The difference between us is that I speak the truth in such a way that the honorable senator thinks that it is fiction, while he speaks fiction “that he desires us to regard as the truth. I am not always disposed to do that. But I should like to know from the Minister what is behind this change. Is he prepared to inform us that the proprietary companies have interviewed the Government since the bill was introduced, and have expressed a desire to have this alteration made? The Government must do what its masters outside tell it to do.
Senator Wilson:
– I am afraid that I am not over-obedient.
Senator GARDINER:
– The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), in another place, amended the bill in a certain way. I understand that it is proposed, in this chamber, to wipe out that amendment. Am I wrong in drawing from that fact the conclusion that there is some influence, about which I know nothing, that is causing the Government to move first this way and then that? It appears to me that the proprietary companies have said, “ It will be better for us to make sure of having another representative,” and then have asked the Government to make that alteration. To meet their wishes the Minister has decided to leave out South Australia, chiefly on the ground that it is not a very large butter- exporting state. I have long since passed the stage when state boundaries would affect my judgment. I foresee on the Lower Murray one of the most prosperous butter-producing districts in Australia. When the South Australian farmers have an unlimited supply of water at their command so that they can go in for dairying on a larger scale, the butter industry in that state will make considerable advances. I believe, that this contemplated change is more in the interests of the proprietary companies than in the interests of South Australia. The Government appears to have introduced this bill because certain people outside have pulled strings. I hope that the Minister will give us some better reason for the change than he has yet voiced. I presume that# the bill was drafted after mature consideration. No doubt the draftsmen were informed of the desire of the Government. After the bill was drafted it must have been considered by the Minister to see if it contained what he desired. I suppose that it was then agreed to by Cabinet.- This principle should, have been in the bill before it reached the second-reading stage. Whether the companies are styled “cooperative “ or “ proprietary “ does not matter a great deal, as most of the socalled co-operative companies are really proprietary concerns. In the first place, probably, the shares were subscribed by dairy farmers, but gradually they disposed of them to others. There may be places where ideal co-operation exists, but I do not know of them. I admit that I am not closely in touch with this industry. The Minister would be well advised to allow the bill to pass in its present form. Senator Foll, who spoke against the bill, will, no doubt, vote for it on that account.
Senator Foll:
– I shall not vote with the Minister in this matter.
Senator GARDINER:
– That statement makes me think that the honorable senator will vote with the Minister. In order that harmony may prevail, even among his own supporters, I ask the Minister to allow the bill to go through in its present form. Bad as it is - and it is pretty bad - it is one of those measures where the intention is good.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I again stress the position of South Australia. I have carefully considered the proposal to give to the proprietary companies three representatives, and to strike out South Australia from paragraph b. The proprietary companies in South Australia manufacture 80 per cent, of the butter produced in that state. Why should the companies which produce 20 per cent, only of South Australian butter be given representation while those which manufacture four times that quantity are to be- left without representation? In this matter I take the all-Australian view, and not the view of any one state. If we give to the proprietary companies, under paragraph c, three representatives instead of two, South Australia will be left without representation ; and if wc leave the bill as it is we shall disfranchise 80 per cent, of-, the producers of that state.
Senator O’loghlin:
– The proprietary companies do not represent the producers.
Senator WILSON:
– Eighty per cent, of the butter manufactured in South Australia is handled by the proprietary companies. Unless we increase the number of representatives who shall constitute the board I can see no way to give South Australia representation other than the way I have suggested.
Senator O’loghlin:
– South Australia has representation under the bill as it stands.
Senator WILSON:
– Only 20 per cent, of the producers are represented; but I suppose that if I talked for a week L should not convince the honorable senator of that.
Senator Gardiner:
– Why did the Minister not notice that when he introduced the bill?
Senator WILSON:
– I admit that that point was overlooked.
Senator O’Loghlin:
– No doubt, interested parties pointed it out.
Senator WILSON:
– Is that unusual? We must expect those who are interested to supply the ammunition. Ministers cannot know the details of every industry in Australia. If we “do not go to those who do know, we shall never know. As a South Australian, I am not likely to do anything which might be detrimental to my own state, but, as a senator, I represent the whole of the state, and not one section of it only. I ask honorable senators to take the same view of this matter.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– The Minister would be well advised not to continue with his effort to delete the words “ South Australia” from sub-clause 2, paragraph 6, otherwise that state might have less representation than it has in the bill as it stands. With Senator Reid. I view this question from an Australian standpoint rather than from the standpoint of South Australia alone. An error has been made in the distribution of the representatives on the board, but that can be rectified easily at this juncture. The co-operative companies in Australia number 370, and the proprietary companies 123. Their representation can be properly apportioned by giving to the proprietary factories three representatives instead of two, inasmuch as South Australia is second on the list. So far as the proprietary factories are concerned she should easily secure representation on the board. She would be in a better position if given one representative for her co-operative factories, as now provided for in paragraph b, and paragraph c was altered to give three representatives instead of two to the proprietary companies. In that direction I propose to vote.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Senator Thompson, in addition to the figures which he supplied, should have given us the volume of business done by the proprietary companies compared with that done by the co-operative companies.
Senator Thompson:
– In that case my argument would be still more effective.
Amendment negatived.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
.- I moveThat the word “ two,” paragraph (c), be leftout with a view to -insert in lieu thereof the word “ three.”
That would, surely, give to South Australia one representative, as that state is second in the list of the proprietary factories of the Commonwealth.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I cannot agree to the amendment moved by Senator Thompson. I tried to obtain representation for South Australia in the way that the Government considers to be the fairest, and I am sorry that I did not receive support. To increase the number of representatives of the proprietary companies from two to three would give greater representation to the eastern states, and act detrimentally to the interests of South Australia. The board is already large enough for anything. As the amendment would not, in any way, improve the position, I ask the honorable senator not to press it.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– My amendment would give to South Australia her fair share of repre- sentation. In Victoria there are 66 proprietary companies, and in. South Australia 33. The number of such companies in the other states is. considerably less, the figures for New South Wales,. Tasmania, Queensland, and Western Australia being respectively 15, 5, 3, and 1. In view of the fact that South Australia is second in the total number of proprietary companies, my amendment would enable her to have proper representation on the board.
Amendment negatived.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– In paragraphs b and c provision is made for representatives to be elected after a vote of those> interested has been taken, but for some extraordinary reason., oaragraph d provides that’ the GovernorGeneral shall select, from amongst the sellers of dairy produce, out of the Commonwealth, some one to represent them. That does not place the sellers in a satisfactory position. I, therefore, move -
That paragraph d be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new oaragraph : - d One member to be elected by those engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth, whether as agents or on their own account.
Senator Thompson:
– How would the honorable senator fix the list of electors.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Notices could be issued to those engaged in the trade that if they desired to vote they could do so. In a case like this, those who are doing a great deal for the industry will get no opportunity to nominate their own representatives if the paragraph remains as printed.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I ask Senator Millen not to press his amendment. The position has had serious consideration from the Government. To prepare a list of persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth and take a poll of them would be a most cumbersome business. The honorable senator can rest assured that the Government, in their choice of a man to represent the selling agents on the board, will be guided by the advice of those who are best able to give it. It is necessary to secure: the services of a man of great experience and outstanding ability. How can all the selling agents distributed over the whole of Australia be expected to know the man who possesses those qualifications to the greatest degree? The Government must take a certain amount of responsibility in the matter, and having given the question every consideration, it has decided that no better method than that provided in the bill could be devised for the selection of the representative of the agents on the board.
Senator FINDLEY (Victoria) [12.17). I support the proposal to delete the paragraph, but not with a view to inserting in ite place the words proposed by Senator Millen. I cannot see how a representative of the persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth can be of any material assistance to the dairymen of Australia. As a matter of fact, the interests of such persons are diametrically opposed to those represented by other members of the board.. His chief concern will probably be to promote the interests of the Tooley-street sellers, to eliminate whom this board is mainly to be called into existence. The Tooleystreet sellers cannot have anything in common with the producers in Australia. Nothing the Minister has said convinces me that paragraph d is necessary. He declares that it is essential to have a man of outstanding ability and the highest commercial training, but I should sav that the other members of the board should possess all those qualifications. They should understand the whole of the business from the stand-point of those they represent. If honorable senators are anxious to assist the dairying industry, they will strike out paragraph d, but not insert the words proposed by Senator Millen. What real purpose can a representative of the sellers serve on the board? Will he be wholly and solely concerned in. getting the best price for Australian produce?
Senator Reid:
– In that respect his interest will be the same as that of the dairymen.
Senator FINDLEY:
– It will be his interest to get as much money as, possible into the hands of those he represents. He will probably be more concerned in promoting the interests of the speculators than those of the dairymen. I do not think we should take any steps to- conserve the interests of the speculators by giving these people representation on the board. On. the contrary, I think we should take steps to eliminate -all middlemen who come between producers and consumers.
Senator Reid:
– We must have some one to sell the produce.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The board will have a London agency, and should be able to conduct its business without assistance from a representative of the selling agencies. I do not see how the representative of the sellers can see eye to eye with the other members on the board.
Senator Reid:
– He will always be anxious to get the best possible price for the butter.
Senator FINDLEY:
– He- will be mainly concerned in conserving the interests of those he represents. On the other hand, the majority of the board will be concerned in conserving the interests of the producers, and in eliminating speculative agencies.
Senator DUNCAN (New South Wales) [12.24). - This is one- of the occasions when in our desire to do good we should beware lest in our hurry we do harm. When I first looked at paragraph d it appeared’ to me that the position was very largely as stated by Senator Findley. I felt that perhaps the interests which might be represented by the gentleman appointed to represent, persons engaged as sellers of. dairy produce out of the Commonwealth might not be on all-fours with those of the majority of the board.
Senator Thompson:
– Is it not necessary to secure the highest selling ability we can get?
Senator DUNCAN:
– That may be so ; but that is not the point. When I gave the matter further consideration, and compared the paragraph with other provisions of the bill, it seemed to me that the London end of the business would,, as a matter of course, fall almost entirely into- the- hands of- the= board’s agency- in London. But I also recognize that those persons who are sellers of- d’airy produce outside .the Commonwealth., have long established agencies in London1,, to- which they forward their consignments’ of butter for disposal on the London market, and that these agencies on1 the- other side of tine world know exactly from the Australian firms what supplies they can obtain. A large business has been built up in this way, and by striking out this paragraph we shall run the danger of dislocating that channel for the distribution of our butter. If the purchasers of our butter find the ordinary channel of securing it closed to them, and are compelled to open up fresh, negotiations with a board, there is a danger that our keen competitors in London may be able to secure the business Australia has already enjoyed. It is a risk we should not run. Eventually the whole business of the disposal of butter in London may come into the hands of the board, but in the meantime we should not run the risk of dislocating the channel that now exists for its distribution there. We should give the board time to function and get a grip of the position, and later on it may be possible for it to take control of the whole means of distribution. It is a fact, as pointed out earlier in the debate, that a comparatively large and growing trade in butter is being done with the East, where the board, in the initial stages, at any rate, will have no representatives. This trade is now carried on by the persons referred to in the paragraph as those engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth. If we want to retain- it, and see- ib grow, it- is absolutely essential that persons engaged in this trade with the East should have representation on the board. In looking after their own interests they will also be doing something for the Commonwealth by ensuring, that that trade is not dislocated. It is possible that, having entire control and with- no representation of the interests of the sellers- of dairy produce overseas, the board may on occasions overlook the Eastern trade. In any case, the representative of the sellers will be only one amongst many. He may put his case before the board in the best possible manner, and yet the board may not see eye to eye with him and meet, his wishes, but at least we shall ensure to those persons engaged in the exporting, of butter the chance to have their representations made to and considered by the board. In the circum- stances, at this stage of the development of the new system of dealing with the export of our dairy produce^ I think the clause should not’ be1 altered.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– There are one or two valid reasons why this paragraph should be deleted, one of which is that the personnel of the board would then be reduced from thirteen to twelve members. Senator Duncan believes that, as different sections should have representation, the number should not be reduced. Representation of different sections is quite unnecessary. It is desirable to have a board consisting of a smaller number of practical men able to effectively handle the business, regardless of sectional interests. We appear to overlook the fact that, notwithstanding our lack of effort, the dairying industry is rapidly extending. The member to be appointed by the Governor-General, as the representative of the persons engaged as sellers, will doubtless represent the proprietary factories, and have little regard for the interests of the co-operative concerns. He will be a representative of those making profits out of the business, and not those actually engaged in the production of butter.
Senator Thompson:
– He will use his business ability to obtain the highest price.
Senator GARDINER:
– That may be the honorable senator’s opinion. Are we likely to obtain the services of a man who will assist the industry? The sellers’ representative on the board will protect their interests, and disregard those of the co-operative companies, which will be to the detriment of the producers. As the Commonwealth Bank, which is a great financial institution, dealing with commerce in all its ramifications, is controlled by a board of eight, surely a board of twelve should be sufficient to conduct the marketing of our dairy produce. Cannot the producers’ and sellers’ interests be protected by one capable man? The sellers of butter, cheese, or any other dairy produce will always be on the alert to beat the producers in any deal they make, and their representative will do as directed.
Senator Reid:
– Does not the honorable senator think the advice of a representative of the sellers would bc very valuable in deciding how the butter should be. sold?
Senator GARDINER:
– I agree with Senator Reid that a man of the capacity of the person to be appointed will sometimes have information which the other members of the board will not possess. If he represents the people who are making profits in selling butter he will have little regard for the producers. I cannot agree with those honorable senators who suggest that it is desirable to have representation outside Australia.
Senator Duncan:
– He will be resident within Australia, but will sell outside the Commonwealth. The paragraph does not provide that the person to be appointed shall reside in London.
Senator GARDINER:
– This paragraph deals with the representation of outside sellers.
Senator Duncan:
– Persons selling but ter outside Australia.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– He will live in Australia but will sell outside the Commonwealth. The provision is notvery clear.
Senator GARDINER:
– The paragraph reads -
One man appointed by the Governor-General as the representative of persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce out of the Commonwealth, whether as agents or on their own account.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
-brockman. - The words “ out of the Commonwealth “ relate to “ dairy produce” and not to the word “ persons.”
Senator GARDINER:
– If that is intended there is nothing in Senator Reid’s interjection that we should have the best advice available as to how the produce should be sold.
Senator Reid:
– I referred to advice given by a person resident in Australia.
Senator J b Hayes:
– The paragraph refers to the sale of export butter.
Senator GARDINER:
– Does it mean sellers of exported butter ?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
-brockman. - A representative in Australia selling butter outside Australia.
Senator O’Loghlin:
– It means a representative in London.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– No.
Senator GARDINER:
– I have already quoted the paragraph, and I should like the Minister to state whether it means the sellers in the Commonwealth of the produce to be exported.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
-brockman. - Yes.
Senator GARDINER:
– If that is the correct interpretation, why is the paragraph worded in such a way. Surely those handling the exportable surplus are capable of disposing of it without the assistance of an outsider.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– The person will be appointed by the GovernorGeneral, which the honorable senator will agree is an advantage. We will have at least another business man on the board.
Senator GARDINER:
– If that is the intention it will be an advantage, but it is a clumsy way of expressing it. The companies handle the products when they come from the farms to the factory and from the factory to the sellers, and the same authorities should dispose of them.
Senator Foll:
– Would the honorable senator be in favour of leaving out all the words after “ Governor-General “?
Senator GARDINER:
– I prefer the whole paragraph to be deleted. No provision has been made for the representation of the consumers.
Senator Reid:
– Those appointed by the Governor-General will represent the consumers.
Senator GARDINER:
– I would move in the direction of giving the consumers representation if it could be done without increasing the number of the board, which is already unwieldy.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– If I had my way, I would strike out the whole of the clause. If there is to be control of the butter export trade, it should be by the Government, and not by a board. I agree with Senator Gardiner that this fetish of control by a board should not be tolerated. If paragraph d stands, it is quite possible, as Senator Gardiner has suggested, that a seller of dairy produce in London may be appointed to the board, and as such he will not necessarily have inside knowledge of the position in Australia.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
-brockman. - A representative in London would not be of much use as a member of the board.
Senator NEEDHAM:
– If there is to be a board, the consumers and, perhaps, also the distributors, may reasonably eix- pect representation. Since there is a desire to have the sellers of dairy produce out of tie Commonwealth represented on the board, why not utilize the staff of the High Commissioner in London, instead of creating new machinery and involving additional expenditure? I hope that paragraph d will be struck out.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– The dairy export business has been carried on for a considerable number of years by certain people.” Nearly the whole of the butter, including that exported by co-operative factories, has been going through their hands. Since they know the avenues and tricks of the trade; surely they ought to be of very material assistance to the board. What I am asking for is, not the deletion of the paragraph without substituting something for it,but that those whohave been engaged in the export trade from Australia should have the right to select their own representative.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator John D. Millen’s amendment) - put. The committee divided:
Ayes . . . . 9
Noes .. .. ..11
Majority . . 2
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales
.- I move-
That all the words in sub-clause 3 down to and including “ election” be left out.
The sub-clause as it stands is an unwarranted interference with the right of the Government to appoint whom it pleases.
The best man may be nominated for election by the producers as a member of the board, but through some unforeseen circumstances he may not be elected. With the clause unamended, certain representatives of the trade may be able to dictate who shall comprise the board. The Government should be untrammelled in the exercise of its power to appoint the Government representative.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– As the committee has not made any qualification of the other sub-clauses, I ask it not to agree to the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the words “ by the producers as a “ in sub-clause 3 be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ as an elected.”
The amendment will prevent the appointment by a back-door’ method of any man who has been defeated at an election.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
– I move -
That the word “ two “ in sub-clause 7 be left out with a view to insert inlieu thereof the word “ three.”
I indicated at the second-reading stage that I intended to move for an extension of the term of elected members of the board.’
Senator Gardiner:
– Let us have the shorter period.
Senator DUNCAN:
– It appears to me that two years will not be sufficiently long, because these men will have to conduct an election over a very wide area. That will occupy a period of about six months, and if they are elected for only two years there will be but eighteen months in which they can discharge their duties. Two years will be ample for the appointee of the Government.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I ask the committee to adhere to the sub-clause as it stands. In two years we shall know whether the board is doing good work, and shall be able to see the effect of this legislation.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to. .
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 (Fees and expenses).
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
.- I take it that the fees and expenses will be prescribed by regulation. I know that the funds will be raised by way of a levy on the butter produced, but I am quite in the dark as to what fees are likely to be prescribed. Has the Government given the matter any consideration?
Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT
– The Government has considered the matter -very fully. If the board is worthy of the trust that will be reposed in it, the fees that it fixes will be fitting to theoccasion. The probability is that they will amount to £2 2s. or £3 3s. a day.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10- (1.) Subject to this act, meetings of the board shall be held at such times and places as the board from time to time determines.
Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales
– I favour the rejection of the clause, because it confers upon the board extraordinary powers which will enable it to travel all over the world without consulting the Government. The fees and expenses of other commissions that are required to travel are subject to the approval of the Minister. That will not be so in this case, and I propose to ask the committee to insert such a provision in sub-clause 1.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– The honorable senator’s objection is rather frivolous. He proposes that a board of reputable men shall not be allowed to meet without the permission of the Minister. The organizations will elect to the board only men in whom they have confidence, and who will not abuse their privileges. It may be necessary for the board to travel to Western Australia or Queensland.
Senator Gardiner:
– Will the Minister amend the clause so as to limit to Australia any travelling that is done by the board ?
Senator WILSON:
– The board will have no powers outside Australia except in regard to marketing in London. If I could see any wisdom in the amendment I should certainly accept it. I cannot see in the bill any provision that makes the amendment necessary.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– The honorable senator desires that this board shall not be at liberty to go all over the world. I entirely agree with him. I think, however, that if he studies clause 8 he will find that under it the board will be so controlled that it will not be able to travel wherever it likes. Unless the regulations provide for the payment of fees and expenses sufficiently large to enable these men to travel throughout the world, they will not be able to do so except at their own expense. ‘
Amendment (by Senator McDougall) agreed to -
That the words “ within the Commonwealth “’ be inserted after the word “places’” in subclause 1.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– As it is considered desirable that the board shall keep arecord of all its proceedings,I move -
That the following new sub-clause be inserted: -
The board shall keep a record of its proceedings.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– I take it that that will be a record of all butter exported by the board, giving the quantity and the price as well as a record of the whole of the business transacted by the board, and, further; that itwill be available for inspection by members of this Parliament.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 - (1.) There shall be an executive committee of the board consisting of the chairman of the board and four members of the board to be elected annually by the board.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
– The committee has already decided that the board shall be representative of all the interests concerned, but it appears to me that, after all, the board will not be the body that will be continually acting. The executive committee will do most of the work, and will act during the periods between the sittingsof the board. It is, therefore, necessary that the various interests shall be represented on the executive. An amendment was mooted in another place, but although there was no great objection to it on the part of the Government, the manner in which the bill was passed through another place did not allow time for consideration to be given to it. I, therefore, move -
That afterthe word “board,” sub-clause 1, line 3, second occurring, the following wordsbe inserted, “’ two of whom shall be chosen from the representatives on the board elected by the boards of directors of the co-operative butter and cheese factories, one chosen from the two representatives elected by the boards of directors of proprietary butter and cheese factories and one to be appointed by the Governor-General as the representative of persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce out ofthe Commonwealth, whether as agents or on their own account; such executive committee.’”
Thatwould give the various interests comprised in the hoard representation on the executive. That is to say, there would be two representatives of cooperative factories, one representative of the proprietary concerns, and, in addition, one to represent the persons engaged as sellers of dairy produce outside the Commonwealth. The amendment in no way alters the executive, but it ensures that it will adequately represent all interests.
Senator Wilson:
– I will accept the amendment.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
.- I am sorry that the Minister has accepted the amendment, as it makes the position more complicated than ever. We shall have to trust largely to the genius of its members for the board to be a success. If we are striving after perfection, it is of no use for us to tie up the board. I consider that what we now propose to do by legislation should be left to the board to do when it is appointed. We should not unnecessarily hamper the board in its operations. While we should be most careful to provide proper safeguards as to the constitution of the executive, we should not surround it with provisions that will injure the usefulness of the board altogether. The idea of a board delegating its powers to an executive is distasteful to me.
Senator Wilson:
– I did not accept this amendment without due consideration. It was moved in another place, and I have had time to study it.
Senator GARDINER:
– I know that the Minister is acquainted with the whole bill, and is aware of what took place when it was debated in another place. There are two distinct interests concerned in this bill. It is like two evenly-matched teams in a tug-of-war, when the rope is pulled first to one side and then to the other. I have obtained information from the industry itself, and understand that there are two chief buyers of butter in the market at present, namely, those who pay cash, where the price to the purchaser is f.o.b., and those who buy from the Butter Pool, and, perhaps, pay a higher price. One of those interests has the ear of the Government, and its influence pervades the whole question, even to the extent of shutting out, by legislation, the other interests. The new system is to kill the old. I do not look upon the wholesale buyers of butter as the friends of the producers. They are the medium by which the produce is taken to the market. The buyers are the middlemen, who, while they serve a very useful purpose, have as their chief object the making of money. There are two sections of middlemen now, but itlooks as if one will be crushed out of existence by the other. Neither of those interests is any particular friend of the Labour party, but we should be particularly careful that we pass no legislation which would give an advantage to any one section of the community. I think that the clause should pass as it stands. We cannot expect to get boards which will in every respect conform to our own individual ideas of what they should be. I have my own views regarding the constitution of this board, but however constituted, its future will depend largely on itself. If its members display ability, capacity and intelligence, the butter industry will continue, and may thrive, butotherwise it will die quickly.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Senator Duncan’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 10
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 (London agency).
Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales
.- Can theMinister explain why it is necessary for the board to have an agency in London? Surely the highly-paid officials at Australia House can carry out all the functions that this agency is likely to undertake.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– Australia House cannot undertake the work that this London agency will be called upon to do. It has not the necessary equipment. Furthermore, the London agency will not be carrying out a public function. The bill is not intended to set up a departmental activity. It is simply a measure to assist the dairying industry to organize itself and carry on its own marketing.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– In a previous clause we stipulate tha number that shall constitute the board in Australia. Why cannot we stipulate the number for the London agency instead of leaving it to the Australian Board to do so?
Senator Wilson:
– The board is not obliged to appoint an agency in London.
Senator FINDLEY:
– If the bill is to be of any service to the dairying industry it can only be a success by having as well as a board in Australia an agency overseas where butter is sold. The people engaged in the industry ought to be in a position to say definitely what number shall form the London agency.
Senator Reid:
– Experience only will tell them that.
Senator FINDLEY:
– Members of the board will have had long experience in connexion with the exportation of butter and the disposal of it overseas.
Senator Reid:
– The agents may have had experience, but not necessarily the members of the board.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The board will do in a wholesale way what the different agents have been doing in the past, and should have some idea of the number of persons who will be required to form the agency in London. I cannot see the necessity for making a distinction between the two bodies.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Am I correct in assuming that the cost of administering this act is to be borne by a levy on all butter exported from Australia, and, if so, can the Minister tell me how much money will be raised by this levy?
Senator Wilson:
– The bill to impose the levy will be before the Senate at the next sitting.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Has the Minister any idea of the probable cost of administering the. act?
Senator Wilson:
– I do not think that the honorable senator ought to expect me to answer that question.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Am I correct in assuming that the cost of administering the measure will be defrayed by the proposed levy ?
Senator Wilson:
– Certainly.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 (Payment of Officers).
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– I want some further information from the Minister. He says that all expenses incurred by the board will be paid by the producers of butter.
Senator Wilson:
– That is provided for in clause 22.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The clause now before the committee provides for the appointment of officers, and states that all salaries and fees shall be “ as prescribed.” When all the money required for meeting these payments is to be found by the butter producers themselves, why should the Government, by regulation, prescribe the salaries or fees to be paid to every one engaged in the business?
Senator Pearce:
– The board must have statutory authority for the payment of any salary. It will have no power to pay away money except as provided by this bill.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The Government will not be raising the money.
SenatorPearce.- The Government will raise the money by an export duty.
Senator FINDLEY:
– That is news to us.
Senator Pearce:
– It is called a levy, but it is really an export duty.
Senator FINDLEY:
– Evidently the work of collecting this money will fall upon the Government, and yet we have been told by the Minister that the administration of this bill will cost the taxpayers nothing. What method is to be employed in collecting the levy?
Senator Pearce:
– All that information will be supplied in the next bill.
Senator FINDLEY:
– It is extraordinary that when we ask for information on this bill we are told that we shall get it in another bill. I think that we should have the information before us now, to guide us in the consideration of this bill.
Senator Pearce:
– The honorable senator has been supplied with the information. .
Senator FINDLEY:
– It is a strange way of doing business.
Senator Pearce:
– The Constitution provides that taxation bills must deal with taxation only. It was impossible to impose the levy by this bill.
Senator FINDLEY:
– At any rate, it is clear that the Minister was wrong when he said that no expense would fall upon the taxpayers in the administration of this bill.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 -
For the purpose of enabling the board effectively to control the export and the sale and distribution after export of Australian dairy produce, the Governor-General may by proclamation prohibit the export from the Commonwealth to Europe of any dairy produce except in accordance with a licence issued by the Minister subject to such conditions and restrictions as the board approves.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I move -
That thewords “to Europe “ be left out.
If this amendment is agreed to, I shall have to move a further amendment later on. The Government realizes that the board should control the whole exportation of butter.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Is it now proposed to control its exportation to the East?
Senator WILSON:
– Yes, to the east, the south, the north, and west. If I am correctly informed by those who are competent to express an opinion, Australia’s butter trade in the East wild be of great importance to Australia in the future. There is no other part of the world where there is so much abuse of privileges as there is in the East. It is, therefore, essential that the board shall control the standardization and marketing of our butter there. There will be no interference with any one who is participating in the trade to the East as long as he does nothing to the detriment of Australia.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– What will be the position of those who are trading with the East at the present time?
Senator WILSON:
– As long as they are carrying on a legitimate and decent business, and are doing nothing, to the detriment of the industry in Australia, they will be permitted to continue. Any one who does anything to the detriment of this country will have his licence cancelled.
Senator Hoare:
– How can the trade to the East be controlled unless agencies are established in the East?
Senator WILSON:
– The board will not be properly carrying out its functions if it does not attend to the organization of marketing arrangements in the East as well as elsewhere. These words were inserted in another place.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– And inserted by the Prime Minister.
Senator WILSON:
– After making exhaustive inquiries it has been found that, if the clause were passed in its present form, the object of the bill would probably be defeated. I intend to submit a further amendment covering tinned butter and cheese. As it is a question of adequately protecting Australian trade, it is equally important that consumers of our dairy produce in the East should receive produce of as good a quality as consumers in Europe, particularly as the Eastern trade is very valuable to Australia.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Does the Minister suggest that consumers in the East are served with inferior butter?
Senator WILSON:
– To a certain extent.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Does the Minister definitely make that assertion?
Senator WILSON:
– I understand that that is the position. It was provided that contracts entered into on and after the 1st September, 1924, should come within the scope of the bill, but information has been received to the effect that a number of contracts have been antedated in order to defeat the object of the bill. That is one of the reasons why it is proposed to leave out these words. The intention of Parliament should not be ignored by any small section conducting a trade in a way that is not advantageous to Australia.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– If my memory serves me aright, the words which it is now proposed to delete were inserted at the request of the Prime Minister, but I do not think it my function to protect the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) in relation to any amendment which he may have- considered it necessary to submit. The Minister (Senator Wilson) has not given any reason why the words inserted by the Prime. Minister should be omitted, and as it is customary for me to draw conr elusions on. flimsy evidence, I am led in this instance to believe that there has been a division in the ministerial ranks. The probability is that the the Prime Minister submitted this amendment without considering the Country party, the representatives of which have since said, ‘ It was all very well for you to insert this amendment, but we wish it to be deleted.” Has the Minister submitted the proposal with the intention of cleaning up the Eastern trade? The Prime Minister has undoubtedly been overruled by caucus, or by the members of the Country party, whom Senator Wilson represents in this chamber. I think we might accept the clause as passed in another place, instead of sending it back and asking the members of that chamber to reverse their decision. Before the debate closes the Minister should give some reason as to why these words are to be deleted.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I trust the committee will reject the amendment. Under clause 12, which we have just passed, a London agency is to be appointed and provision is made for dealing generally with the handling and marketing of butter there. There is no such provision in regard to the East. Considerable expense has been incurred by the Government in developing trade with the East, in face of competition from Canada, New Zealand, and other countries. Certain interests in Sydney have now established a footing and are exporting about 20,000 boxes of butter per an- num. If this amendment is agreed to, that trade will be interfered with.
Senator Pearce:
– Is it not tinned butter that is exported to the East?
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– No, that is exported to Java, which is a different proposition. The butter exported to the East is put up in pound packets, and not in tins.
Senator Pearce:
– Why should such exports not be under the control of the board?
SenatorJOHN D. MILLEN. - Why should a board control a trade concerning which it knows nothing? Fairly large consignments of “Daisy” butter are now exported to the East by Sydney firms, and if this amendment is agreed to that business will be wiped out of existence.
Senator Reid:
– Not if the butter is up to the proper standard.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Yes.
Senator Elliott:
– It will not be interfered with.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– When there is a scarcity of butter on the London market exportations to the East will be reduced. As we are endeavouring to make the measure as perfect as possible we should allow exportations in this direction to continue without any interference by the board. I cannot imagine the Prime Minister moving to insert these words without giving the matter the most careful attention. Our Eastern trade is of material value to Australia, and should not be hampered.
Senator Wilson:
– It will not be interfered with.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– We know what will happen. In the past, governments have endeavoured to stimulate trade with Eastern countries, but its development has been due largely to the efforts of private enterprise. Butter exported under the “ Daisy “ brand is up to the standard quality, and is accepted in China, where its quality is appreciated.
Senator Hoare:
– Ifthat is so the honorable senator has nothing to fear from this amendment.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– The board may wish to dispose of the whole of the exportable surplus on the London market. The grade of butter for export is determined by Customs officials who, if this amendment is. made, may decide that butter intended for the East shall be shipped for sale in European markets. If the proposed course is followed, the Government will incur the risk of practically destroying the trade of firms which have rendered splendid service in establishing trade with Eastern countries.
Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia
– As this bill has been presented in the interests of Australian producers of dairy produce, the control of the Eastern trade should also be in the hands of the board. Reputable firms which have established trade in the East will not be interfered with so long as they obtain the necessary licence issued by the board. If the words, “to Europe” are allowed to remain the objects ofthe measure may be defeated by butter being exported to, say, Colombo, and re-shipped to any European port. I am glad the Government has decided to make the provisions of the bill apply to the export trade generally.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
.- Clause 14 of the bill, which gives the board plenary powers in regard to the disposal of our exportable surplus of dairy produce, reads - (14.) For the purpose of enabling the Board effectively to control the export and the sale and distribution after export of Australian dairy produce, the Governor-General may by proclamation prohibit the export from the Commonwealth to Europe of any dairy produce except in accordance with a licence issued by the Minister subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Board approves.
I understand the Minister proposes to move a further amendment to read - “Provided that this section shall not apply to tinned butter or tinned cheese.” The Government intend to hand over to the board the complete control of all butter for export. Why should we seek to limit the authority of the board? Senator Millen appears to be greatly concerned about the interests of a Sydney export company which has built up a certain amount of trade with the East. That firm is not in a different position from other firms which have established profitable agencies in London, but which, according to this bill, are to be swept unceremoniously aside.
Senator Wilson:
– No.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Our experience of the operations of boards suggests that this may happen. Boards present a report to Parliament annually, but owing to the multiplicity of boards it is impossible for Ministers to read all the reports. The object of the board will be to ensure that only butter of first quality shall be exported. There is no reason why its operations should be confined to the European trade.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I hope the Minister will not persist with the amendment. Senator Millen has shown that important business interests of Sydney will probably be prejudiced, and that firms which have established trade with the East will be obliged to apply to the board for a licence to continue in that trade.
Senator Wilson:
– If they are doing a legitimate business they will not be interfered with.
Senator Pearce:
– And the terms of the licence to be issued must be approved by the Minister for Trade and Customs.
Senator GARDINER:
– Will the Minister give us an assurance that existing interests in Sydney will not be interfered with ?
Senator Wilson:
– In every way possible they will be protected.
Senator GARDINER:
– That assurance is altogether too indefinite. The bill is quite a different measure from what it was twenty minutes ago. The amendment to strike out the words referred to will seriously affect Sydney business interests. I protest against any interference with trade that has been built up as the result of years of effort and thought. If the proprietary interests get a majority on the board there will certainly be a temptation to interfere with other business interests.
Senator Wilson:
– They cannot possibly get a majority on the board. The co-operative societies are bound to have eight of the thirteen representatives.
Senator GARDINER:
– The Prime Minister, when he moved to insert these words in another place, also thought he had a majority in Cabinet. He now finds that he had not. Why is it now proposed to strike out the words referred to?
Senator Wilson:
– Because he has asked for this to be done.
Senator GARDINER:
– I venture to say it is because certain sections of the butter trade have a representative in the Country party. Although Sydney business interests do not, as a rule, look upon me as their representative, nevertheless I am concerned about their position. We should not lightly interfere with trade that has been established under existing laws.
Senator HOARE:
South Australia
– I disagree with my leader. I fail to see how the amendment will interfere in any way with Sydney business interests. If the firms referred to are doing a bona fide trade and are exporting good-quality butter they have nothing to fear. Indeed, it may be an advantage to export butter that carries the imprimatur of the board. I am glad that the amendment has been submitted and that the clause will be restored to its original form, so that the board will have complete control of the export trade.
Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 10
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I move -
That the words “ the board approves “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “are prescribed after recommendation to the Minister by the board.”
This amendment should have the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, who said just now that, in his opinion, the board had altogether too much power.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I move -
That the following proviso be added at the end of the clause: - “ Provided that this section shall not apply to tinned butter or tinned cheese.”
That is quite a separate trade, and there should be no necessity to get a licence to engage in it.
Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– This is a most extraordinary proposal. Tinned butter goes only to Java It is sent in 1-lb. tins. On the one hand, the Government refused to restrict the operations of the board in relation to Eastern trading when suggested by me, and on the other hand, it proposes itself to exempt this particular class of trade with the. East. It can readily be imagined that butter which is sent in 1-lb. tins amongst general cargo may leave Australia in an excellent condition and yet arrive in the East in an inferior condition.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– The amendment is a ridiculous and an outrageous one. Must this product, when exported, be wholesome and fit for human consumption? I presume that it will be. Why, then, should it be removed from strict inspection?
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– This is not a very big trade, but it is on a very satisfactory basis. It is not important enough to warrant the committee making a noise about it.
Senator Graham:
– It is Australian butter, is it not ?
Senator WILSON:
– It is. The packers send it out under their own label, and they will take every care to see that the tins contain the best quality butter. Senator Millen has referred to the “Daisy” brand. There is only one brand of first class butter that can leave Australia under this bill, and that is the Kangaroo” brand.
Senator Gardiner:
– Is it intended to prevent the “Daisy” brand from being exported ?
Senator WILSON:
– There will be only the one brand, and that will be agreed upon by the industry itself.
Senator REID:
Queensland
– I am not convinced by the Minister’s statement. This is a proposal to legislate specially for a particular section of the trade. I intend to watch the interests of the dairying industry. Only the best brands of butter should be exported, whether they come from the east, the west, the north, or the south of Australia. What will happen if the size of these tins is enlarged ? The persons who engage in the trade may make the tins the size of a butter-box. The Minister does not propose to impose a limit of 1 lb. I shall certainly vote against the amendment, and I trust that the committee will reject it.
Amendment negatived.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
.- I move-
That the following proviso be added at the end of the clause: - “Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent the export of butter of a standard quality.”
I want a straight-out vote to see whether it is desired to interfere with the export of good butter. The standard can be fixed as high as the Government likes to fix it. If the interests that I represent in New South Wales are willing to export butter of a high standard, I am not prepared to allow them to be interfered with by any board.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 15
Majority . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
– Under the sessional” order, as it is now 3.30 p.m., I must put the question -
That I do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.
Question resolved in the negative.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– I move-
That the following new sub-clause be inserted : - 18a. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to sales of dairy produce made on a f.o.b. basis for sale outside the Commonwealth, and buyers or their agents shall have full authority to enter into a contract for the carriage by sea of such dairy produce.
Realizing the hour of the day, and the strenuous debate which has already taken place, I shall give my reasons briefly. The bill as it stands is to vest control in a board dominated by representatives who stand for direct consignments. The Prime Minister promised that he would not interfere with the ordinary trade channels, but he is doing so. That isthe burden of this bill and the story that it tells. It is a violation of the promise made by the Prime Minister and his supporters, and robs the producer of his right to sell for cash and take the risk of consignment.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I ask the Senate not to accept this amendment, as to do so would be equivalent to throwing the bill in the waste-paper basket. It would open the door wide for the continuance of the abuses which exist at present.
Senator Foll:
– It favours the speculator.
Senator WILSON:
– Had Senator Needham been with me during the last few weeks of my inquiries into the butter business, I am certain that he would not have moved his amendment. On the surface it appears to be all right, but these people whom he desires to protect are the same that I referred to when I spoke of antedated contracts. On behalf of the Government, I give an assurance that if these men are doing a legitimate business in the interests of Australia, there will be no interference with them, and they will be given licences.
Senator Needham:
– My amendment would prevent a monopoly being granted to the board.
Senator WILSON:
– It opens the door to abuses, and renders the bill nugatory.
Question - That the proposed new clause be inserted - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 7
NOES: 16
Majority … …9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Proposed new clause negatived.
Clause 19 - . (1.) After the constitution of the board, or after some later date as the Minister on the recommendation of the board, by notice in the Gazette, appoints, no contract for the carriage by sea to any place beyond the Commonwealth of any dairy produce shall be made except by the board acting as the agent of the owners of the dairy produce or of other persons having authority to export the dairy produce, or in conformity with conditions approved by the board.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
– This is an extraordinary clause, and appears to-be outside the scope of the bill. It interferes with the shipping of produce from Australia to an extent that no other bill which has been placed before us has attempted.
Senator Gardiner:
– The honorable senator “ swallowed “ the clause when he agreed to the second reading. He should not grumble now.
Senator DUNCAN:
– I accepted the general principles of the bill on the second reading.
Senator Gardiner:
– The honorable senator accepted the principle embodied in this clause.
Senator DUNCAN:
– I accepted the principle of control by the board of the marketing of the produce of the dairying industry, but this clause is to prohibit any one, excepting the board and its agents, from making contracts for the shipping of dairy produce beyond the Commonwealth .
Senator Needham:
– Yet the honorable senator assisted to defeat my amendment.
Senator DUNCAN:
– I did that because it did not give what I wanted. The honorable senator’s amendment applied only to sales on an f.o.b. basis, but this clause is to prevent the. making of contracts by any one other than the board and its agents. That is altogether too wide a power to give to the board. It places a monopoly in its hands so far as the shipment of dairy produce is concerned.
Senator Foll:
– It applies only to butter and cheese.
Senator DUNCAN:
– I do not think that it is necessary to limit to the board the making of contracts. While the board should control the butter and its sale, the carriage of the produce to the market might well be left open, so that the most advantageous terms could be obtained in the interests of the industry. I hope that the clause will not be permitted to stand, as such a monopolistic power should not be given to the board.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– The Minister appears to he under the impression that a considerable number of contracts have been entered into in connexion with the export of dairy produce which will have a damaging effect upon this measure. Will he, therefore, take the necessary steps to secure the abrogation of those contracts?
Senator Wilson:
– Yes, so far as backdated contracts are concerned.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
– I understood that if a licence were granted to the owners of the dairy produce no restriction would be placed on its disposal. It appears now that, after obtaining their licences, they will have to go to the board to make a contract for their butter to be shipped. If that is the case, I can see that the board will be very much overworked.
Senator Foll:
– One body, such as the board, would be able to make better terms, as. it would deal with the whole of the export butter.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– That might be the case. if the board were properly active; but it is asking the board to undertake a very great deal to require it to make contracts for the shipment of all the butter exported from the various ports of Australia. If others are granted licences, they should be free to make their own shipping arrangements. At any rate they could, if they chose, in their own interests get the board to make contracts for them, but to compel them to do so is to my mind absolutely unnecessary.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I am delighted to find two of the worshippers of this new religion which the Government has setbefore us awakening to the fact that the bill will seriously interfere with every one. Most honorable senators support the measure because they think it will mean that only the beet butter will be exported; but now they are beginning to realize that although a factory may produce the highest grade butter, and may not be refused a licence to export it, nevertheless it will be compelled to enter into a contract through the board for the shipment of its product.
Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 10
Ma jority . . . . 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20- (1.) Without limiting any authority specifically conferred on the board with respect to any dairy produce placed under its control, the board shall have full authority to make such arrangements, and give such directions as it thinks fit for the following matters: -
Amendments (by Senator Wilson) agreed to -
That the words “ Without limiting any authority specifically conferred on the board with respect to any dairy produce placed under its control” sub-clause 1 be left out.
That after the word “shall” sub-clause 1, the words “ with respect to any dairy produce placed under its control “ be inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 (Dairy produce export fund).
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I congratulate the Government on providing in sub-clause 4 that the income of the dairy produce export fund shall not be subject to taxation by the Commonwealth or a state. It is a small concession to common sense.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23-
Moneys held in the fund, uninvested by the board, may be lodged either at call or on fixed deposit, or partly at call and partly on fixed deposit with the Commonwealth Bank, or with any other prescribed bank, and while in such bank shall be held to be moneys of the Crown.
Amendment (by Senator Wilson) agreed to -
That after the words “ either “ and “ partly,” first occurring, the words “ in an account “ be inserted.
Amendment (by Senator Grant) proposed -
That the words “ or with any other prescribed bank, and while in such bank shall be held to be moneys of the Crown be left out.
Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT
– I ask Senator Grant not to press his amendment. I shall move an amendment to a later clause to provide that all moneys received by the board shall as far as possible be placed in the Commonwealth Bank, but in many country districts there will be no branches of the Commonwealth Bank available.
Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It is time that branches of the Commonwealth Bank were opened in those centres.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 -
All moneys received by the board . . . shall be paid by the board into a separate account at a bank to be approved by the Minister.
Amendment (by Senator Wilson) agreed to -
That the words “ a’ bank to be approved by the Minister “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the Commonwealth Bank.”
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26. (Power to call for returns).
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– The power with which the board is clothed by this clause is most extraordinary. If a person called upon by the board to furnish certain information does not do so within the time prescribed, he may be fined £100. Apparently the board can call upon any one in any part of Australia to furnish a return in respect of hi3 business.
Senator Pearce:
– Only in connexion with the dairying industry.
Senator FINDLEY:
– But dairying is carried on all over Australia. What is the necessity for this?
Senator Pearce:
– To see that the act is being complied with.
Senator FINDLEY:
– The board will have a never-ending task in securing returns from all over Australia. Apparently the Government is afraid that some one in some part of Australia may not be disposed to comply with certain provisions of the act, but having full control over the export of dairy produce it should be able to control this matter without giving to the board the power to call upon any one at any time to furnish any information it requires.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 4826
DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGES BILL
Bill received from. House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.
page 4826
ADJOURNMENT
Canadian-Australian Tariff Preferences
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Homeland Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– In moving -
That the Senate do now adjourn,
I desire to make a statement concerning the negotiations which have been proceeding between the Commonwealth and Canada in respect to preferential trade. As honorable senators are aware the Government has been negotiating for some time with Canada with a view to concluding a reciprocal tariff agreement, and I have pleasure in being able to announce that the negotiations have been successful, An agreement has been arranged, which it is believed will be of very substantial benefit to the trade of both countries, and will tend towards closer relations between the two dominions. It was found necessary to restrict the agreement to a limited range of goods in order that a reasonable balance of reciprocal advantages might be arrived at. This method of procedure arises from the fact that Canada’s trade with Australia is much more extensive and much more valuable than Australian trade with Canada. This fact practically determined the limitation of the agreement to a specified number of articles. The agreement “will, however, include those goods in which each country is vitally interested, and it is anticipated that satisfactory results will accrue to both countries, and form the basis for a more extensive application of preferences in the future. The initial difficulties of concluding a treaty having been surmounted, we shall have the opportunity of testing the possibility of achieving better balanced conditions than at present exist in the trade relations of the two dominions. We believe that in arranging this treaty we are taking a step towards a more general application within the Empire of a policy of tariff preferences which will tend to develop the resources of the Empire. The Honorary Minister (Senator Wilson) will submit a motion next week setting out the details of the agreement which the Senate will be asked to adopt. The following is a statement showing what Australia offers Canada : -
The following schedule shows what Canada offers Australia: -
Honorable senators willsee from these tables that very important preferences have been conceded to Australia.
Question resolved is the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4.12 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 September 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240926_senate_9_109/>.