Senate
30 March 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 339

QUESTION

MOUNT ISA TO TOWNSVILLE RAILWAY

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Since the Government was forced by pressure of public opinion and the outburst of the Premier of Queensland to grant a loan to Queensland for the reconditioning of the Mount Isa to Townsville railway, will the Minister tell the Senate what rate of interest is being charged for this money? When is the loan to be repaid? When do interest and redemption payments commence? Will the Minister detail the much more favorable terms granted to New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia as affecting the standardization of railways?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honorable senator, of course, has based his question on a wrong foundation. There is no question of the Commonwealth Government having been forced by pressure of public opinion to assist in the reconditioning of the Mount Isa railway. The Mount Isa Mine is prospectively, perhaps, the greatest export earning single venture in Australia. The Government’s full support is justified on that ground alone quite apart from the fact, as the honorable senator knows much better than most people, that Queensland traditionally supports us as a Government and returns us to power.

Having passed through those little pleasantries, I turn to the honorable senator’s questions. All the details he has sought were set out in a public statement, and I am sorry that I was not able to put my finger on that statement before coming into the Senate. My recollection is that the rate of interest is tied in somewhere to the rate at which the Commonwealth Government is making overseas borrowings at present. We always expected to raise a special overseas loan for the Mount Isa railway. We failed to do so previously, but I think we still have some hopes that we will obtain a loan in the future. T am not certain of the period of the present loan. I have a recollection that it will be 25 years but that is set out in the public statement.

As to the details of the interest terms and repayment of instalments and so on, they are still a matter for negotiation between the Queensland and the Commonwealth Governments. The negotiations have not yet been completed. We are hoping they will be completed and that they will be embodied in legislation and brought before the Parliament during the current session. It may be that that expectation will not prove to be correct. The point is that the negotiations are not completed. The project requires parliamentary approval, and we are hoping to get that approval as soon as possible.

The sting in the tail of the honorable senator’s questions is the request for a contrast between the terms of this proposal and the railway standardization legislation. 1 remind Senator Dittmer that this new proposal is in a different category. The negotiations concerning the railway standardization took place some years ago when rail standardization was regarded as having great potentialities and different arrangements were then made.

Senator DITTMER:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister for National Development. As he mentioned, Mount Isa Mines Limited has been allimportant in this loan, but does he know the percentage of goods transported on that railway for the service of Mount Isa Mines Limited and the percentage transported for the service of other industries in that area?

Senator SPOONER:

– I could not give the percentages off hand, but my recollection is quite clear that there is a substantia! volume of traffic on that railway apart from the output of Mount Isa Mines Limited.

page 339

QUESTION

OFFICIAL HANDBOOK

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. By way of preface, may I say that I have just received from the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom a handbook entitled “ Britain “. I have been reading it for some hours and so far I have not found any errors in it. Will the Minister consider placing before Cabinet a proposal for the production of a similar handbook for Australia? As it would be costly, will the Minister suggest as a starting point the amalgamation of handbooks issued by various departments, which I think are of unequal value?

Senator Sir WALTER COOPER:

– I have also had a look at the handbook that was prepared about the United Kingdom and that has been distributed, I think, to all members of the Parliament. There certainly is a wealth of information in it. The book is comparable with the Commonwealth “ Year Book “, but has in addition a number of illustrations- We do issue various books. I happened to pick up one entitled “Australia in Brief”. This is only a small handbook but it contains a number of details about Australia. If we printed a handbook such as the one referred to by Senator McCallum, we should probably have to do away with the Commonwealth “ Year Book “, which has been published for many years. However, I shall bring the matter to the notice of Mr. Freeth, who is in charge of the News ‘and Information Bureau, and ask him to let me know what his department thinks of the suggestion. He may put the proposal before Cabinet himself.

page 340

QUESTION

QANTAS EMPIRE AIRWAYS LIMITED HANGAR

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I direct a series of questions to the appropriate Minister, which is a good way of getting all Ministers to listen. First, is it a fact that Qantas Empire Airways Limited proposes to erect a large maintenance hangar at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) airport? Secondly, is it a fact that the nominated sub-contractor for the supply and erection of the structural steel work for the aforesaid hangar is Electric Power Transmission Proprietary Limited of Sydney? Thirdly, is it a fact that this company was the supplier and fabricator of structural steel work for the hangar that collapsed some few years ago? Fourthly, is it a fact that tenders were called recently for the supply and fabrication of this new hangar, on the basis of the design being carried out in mild steel? Fifthly, is it a fact that the consulting engineers are not in favour of the execution of this work by Electric Power Transmission Proprietary Limited? Sixthly, does the use of this sub contractor necessitate the importation of steel work from Italy, and is any overseas exchange of currency involved?

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

– I am aware that Qantas Empire Airways Limited has plans for the extension of its technical facilities at Sydney and I also have in mind that the erection of a large hangar, probably the one referred to by Senator Sandford, is in prospect. I do not know the answers to the detailed questions. They relate to matters which are, in the usual course of events, left to Qantas Empire Airways Limited as a trading organization. I shall be pleased to have a look at the questions, if the honorable senator will put them on the noticepaper, and give him such information as I am able to obtain.

page 340

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister of Shipping and Transport. Has the Commonwealth Government given consideration, as reported in the press, to a joint AustraliaNew Zealand venture for the construction of a passenger ship for the trans-Tasman service? Would such a ship be constructed in Australia? Will the Minister ensure that if it is decided to construct a ship its construction will in no way delay the provision of the urgently needed Sydney-Hobart passenger and cargo shipping service?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I know that the New Zealand Government is intensely interested in what is to happen to the trans-Tasman service subsequent to the withdrawal of “ Monowai “. I do not know what the position is at the moment or what negotiations have taken place, but I shall certainly take an early opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleague, Mr. Opperman, and shall let the honorable senator have whatever information it is possible to get. I noticed the sting in the tail of the question. I shall not forget to direct the Minister’s particular attention to that matter.

page 340

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time earlier this session I asked the Minister representing, the Minister for Primary Industry whether the Government had had any further dealings with representatives of the dried fruits industry relative to the stabilization of that industry. I now desire to ask whether the Minister has anything to report on that matter.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– I have received a reply to that question. It is to the effect that, after having received further representations from the industry, the Government has advised the Australian Dried Fruits Association that it would be prepared to offer the industry a stabilization plan identical in all respects to the plan which was rejected by a ballot of growers in August, 1957. To date, the association has not advised whether it intends to take any action in the matter.

page 341

QUESTION

MONTAGU SWAMP LAND SETTLEMENT PROJECT

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry relevant to the Montagu Swamp land settlement project . in north-western Tasmania. What is the total amount expended on the project to date, including roads and drainage? What area has been allotted to each settler? How many soldier settlers are in occupation? How many are expected to be settled when the project is completed? What is estimated to be the cost of completing the whole project?

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator Lillico told me that he proposed asking this question, and I have obtained some information on the point. Expenditure on the Montagu swamp project to 29th February, 1960, was nearly £2,000,000. With regard to roads, the expenditure figure I have given includes the cost of farm roads only. Other roads are financed by the State of Tasmania, and the Commonwealth has no knowldege of their cost. The average farm size is 110 acres.

Seven soldier settlers are in occupation of farms. Four of them will shortly be granted leases. The remaining three settlers are being employed part-time on the project pending the productivity of their farms reaching the level required for issue of leases. The sub-division has not yet been finalised, but the number of farms to be finally settled will be either 48 or 49.

The cost of the project was estimated, in August last year, at £2,300,000. However, wages and other costs have increased in the meantime and the estimate is under further review. I suggest that further questions be submitted to the Tasmanian Government.

page 341

QUESTION

EQUAL PAY FOR THE SEXES

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that this week is being celebrated throughout Australia as National Equal Pay Week? Can he inform the Senate when, if ever, the Commonwealth Government intends to ratify or implement International Labour Organization Convention No. 100 and recommendation No. 90 on equal remuneration, and the more recent Convention No. Ill on discrimination? Will he consider setting up within his department a women’s bureau along the lines of that operating in the United States of America? Finally, will he inform the Senate what is Australia’s representation on the Status of Women Commission?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I shall direct to the attention of the Minister concerned the suggestions made by the honorable senator as to the setting up of a bureau, and I shall obtain from him any information he has whether the convention to which she refers is to be ratified and, if so, when that is likely to be done.

I point out that there are two matters involved in this question. One, to put it in a way in which Senator Tangney has put. it, is equal pay. I gather that there is a considerable amount of opposition to this from the trade union movement, and from other movements. The other matter relates to equal pay for equal work. That is something quite different. It is, I think, a concept which the women of Australia regard with more favour than they do the concept of straight-out equal pay.

page 341

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT FERRY SERVICE

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he has been advised of the instruction of the Australian National Line to reduce the speed of the “ Princess of Tasmania” between Melbourne and Tasmanian ports pending a programme of machinery inspection and adjustment. I point out that this will increase the time for the trip by one hour between ports and there is the possibility of a further curtailment of speed. If this does happen, it will interfere serously with the splendid service given to the transport and tourist industries of Tasmania. I ask the Minister whether he will investigate the matter, and whether he will consider providing a second ship in order to ensure that the service is maintained at its present excellent level.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I think the question deserves a precise answer and for that reason I will consult with my colleague, Mr. Opperman, about it. May I just say that the delay entailed in the current running of the vessel would seem to indicate that a running survey is being undertaken, which is not an unusual procedure in the maintenance of ships and certainly does not necessarily justify the belief that the delay may be lengthened in any way. Indeed, if a running survey is being carried out it will be only a few weeks at most before the normal schedule is resumed. If it is only a running survey - and I would think that is all it is - then with every understanding of Senator Wardlaw’s enthusiasm for another ship, I think there is hardly justification for the provision of another “ Princess of Tasmania “.

page 342

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SHIPBUILDING BOARD

Senator MCKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. In view of the Prime Minister’s recent statement that governmental expenditure would be reduced, and the statement by the Minister for Shipping and Transport on 27th March that a permanent staff organization would be set up by the Australian Shipbuilding Board, will the Minister say whether the setting up of this organization will lead to an increase in the number of public servants?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I can answer this question without referring it to my colleague. It is not proposed that the staff of the Australian Shipbuilding Board shall be increased. The function of the board sometimes is not understood. The board exists for the purpose of providing a common service to shipbuilders and to shipowners, which would be ever so much more expensive if shipbuilders were to set up the same kind of organization within their own shipyards. Among its activities the board prepares plans, takes out specifications of engine requirements and obtains details of a highly technical nature, all expensive and time consuming in themselves but all very necessary for efficient shipbuilding. If the same kind of thing were done by each of the four or live shipyards it would be much more costly to each yard and in the aggregate to the industry. I need only add that the service provided by the board is paid for by the yards that receive the service.

page 342

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of preface I point out that earlier this week Mr. Opperman, when speaking at Port Augusta in South Australia, indicated that Cabinet would soon reconsider the provision of an Australian ship for use in the antarctic. Is the Minister able to report on any reference that he may have made to his colleague after my question to him on 10th March? If plans are being prepared will the Minister discuss the possibility of building such a ship in Australia, preferably at Whyalla, in South Australia?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I have had an opportunity to discuss this very interesting and important matter with Mr. Opperman. He has told me that the discussions that were initiated some years ago are continuing but they have taken a very interesting turn since the conference of nations which was held last year in respect of territorial rights in Antarctica, at which a number of outstanding and important national questions were settled. The Minister has told me that as a result of that conference a review of Antarctic policy is now being made and he has no doubt that in that review the provision of ships will be discussed as a most important item. That is as much as he is able to tell me at the moment. I have told him of the interest of Senator Laught and other honorable senators in the matter, and have asked him to keep me posted on the progress of the talks.

page 343

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport by reminding him that one of the first statements that was made by Mr. Opperman after his appointment to the Ministry was to the effect that the East-West Highway would be placed very high on the list of matters requiring Commonwealth attention, with a view to its being made a very good highway. In view of a contrary statement that Mr. Opperman has now made, will the Minister say whether he is aware of the concern being expressed in Western Australia over the decision of his colleague in the matter of the East-West Highway reconstruction? Will the Minister also ask Mr. Opperman to give further urgent consideration to having a bitumen surface put on this road, which is so important to the tourist traffic and trade of Western Australia and plays an important part in linking the eastern and western parts of the continent?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– With no geographical inhibitions at all, 1 recognize the question as being of some importance. I therefore suggest that it be placed on the notice-paper, so that my colleague can reply to it himself.

page 343

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration inform me whether, in recent weeks, there has been any evidence of unusual activity in relation to emigration from South Africa to Australia? Can he say whether steps have been taken to see that the facilities of the immigration processes in Australia will be fully available to South Africans?

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

– I noticed only last week a statement by the Minister for Immigration to the effect that there had been no untoward movement in regard to prospective immigration from South Africa to Australia, but if the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain the necessary information for him.

page 343

QUESTION

PEARLING

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that world production of pearl shell is in excess, of consumption? Is it also a fact that because of this over-production of motherofpearl at least one-half of the Australian, owned pearling fleet is laid up? Is it correct that the Australian Government, in its. negotiations with the Japanese Government this year, proposes to increase the quota which Japanese pearling interests may fish in Australian waters? If this is so, does the Government realize that it will deal a knock-out blow to the Australian pearling interests?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– Speaking generally, I understand that the market for pearl shell throughout the world is in fact considerably depressed owing largely, I think, to the competition of plastics. Plastics are cheaper, and while they are perhaps not is good as pearl shell, apparently they make satisfactory buttons. I do not know what proportion of the Australian lugger fleet is laid up, but I shall find out for the honorable senator and I shall also let him have precise figures regarding the quota arrangements under which the Japanese may fish off the Australian coast.

page 343

QUESTION

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Senator WRIGHT:

– I ask the Minister for National Development, who is perhaps the appropriate Minister, whether consideration has been given to recent British proposals for the improvement and reformation of building society law, with a view to incorporating similar improvement in the laws of this country. Recognizing that building societies, which now have a special interest from the point of view of the housing legislation of the Commonwealth, actually owe their creation to State law, will the Minister consider co-ordinating this matter with the work of the committees now considering uniform company law in this country?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have had a good deal of contact with the building society movement. I have noticed amendments of the building society legislation in Great

Britain under which the British Government was using to greater advantage the services of building societies by providing funds to be made available for the purpose of increasing the size of homes; but I assume that that is not the matter about which Senator Wright is asking. I take it that his question relates to the legal contribution of building societies. I am without knowledge of that matter, and I therefore ask the honorable senator to place his question on the notice-paper.

page 344

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTY ON SMALL CRAFT

Senator KENDALL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen a statement by the Minister for Shipping and Transport to the effect that small pleasure craft may now be imported without reference to the Department of Shipping and Transport? If he has, will the Minister say whether or not such small craft and/ or their fittings, such as sails, may now enter Australia free of duty?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The honorable senator refers to a statement made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport regarding the streamlining of administration, whereby small pleasure craft, for the importation of which a permit previously was necessary from the Department of Shipping and Transport, may now be imported without such a permit. Ships of under 15 tons may now come into Australia without a permit from the department. In addition, a person who brings a pleasure craft to Australia for the purpose of having a holiday here and then takes the craft away again, no longer is required to fill in all the forms that were necessary previously. I think that these measures represent an excellent streamlining of administration. So far as the payment of customs duty is concerned, there has not been the slightest alteration. Customs duty must still be paid on imported craft.

page 344

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

Relative to the statement made by the Minister in answer to questions on 10th March that he thought the recent agreement between AnsettA.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines would not only be of benefit to the airlines but would be appreciated by the Australian taxpayers, a large amount of whose money is. involved, will the Minister advise (a) in what manner the Australian taxpayers are involved with Ansett-A.N.A., having regard to the fact that it is a private company; and (b) if they are involved, the amount of the Australian taxpayers’ money which is involved in this privately-owned company?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– In referring to my recent statements on the subject, the honorable senator has chosen not to distinguish between the taxpayers’ interest in the nation’s airline industry and the financial affairs of one of the airline operators. The airline industry is one of the most important aids to national development, and hence the taxpayers meet a significant proportion of the cost of the essential civil aviation facilities. They are greatly interested, therefore, to see that the airlines system is not only competitive but efficient and economic. As to the honorable senator’s specific questions, he knows as well as any of us that no public funds are invested in Ansett-A.N.A.

page 344

QUESTION

RABBITS

Senator McKELLAR:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

Have other States had results as good as those achieved in New South Wales in eradicating rabbits by the use of sodium fluoracetate, commonly known as 1080?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

Yes. Using sodium monofluoracetate commonly known as 1080, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania have achieved considerable success in controlling rabbits with well organized campaigns carried out by trained personnel. These campaigns are being continued and expanded. Aerial application of baits has given encouraging results in Victoria. The efficiency of rabbit control in South Australia has increased markedly since the passage of the amended Vermin Control Act in 1957. However, on the information available at the moment, it is difficult to separate control achieved through the use of 1080 from the effects of tightened policy on burrow ripping, &c.

page 344

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral inform the Senate whether his colleague is satisfied with the progress being made by the board at present hearing applications for thirteen licences to be issued for new television stations?

Can he indicate when the hearings may be concluded, and can he say when the rural areas not covered by the present hearings may expect their applications to be invited?

The Postmaster-General has furnished me with the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions: -

The allocation of stations in the fourth stage of the development of the services cannot be determined until a decision is reached as to the sites selected for the stations in the thirteen areas now under consideration. However, every effort is being made to expedite the current hearings before the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and as soon as there is some definite indication as to the likely coverage of the stations which are to be established in the third stage, the Government will give urgent consideration to the further extension of the services.

page 345

QUESTION

BEACONSFIELD POST OFFICE

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has he been made aware of criticism by the Beaconsfield Council of the buildings and facilities at the Beaconsfield official post office? Will the Minister have this matter investigated with a view to providing a new post office for this growing district of Tasmania?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply to the honorable senator: -

The existing building at Beaconsfield houses a post office, telephone exchange and residential quarters for the postmaster and, although an old building, the post office section is reasonably meeting postal requirements at present.

The exchange section, however, has reached capacity and a site is being acquired and an item included in the draft three-year programme for the erection of a new telephone exchange building.

When the new exchange is established, vacated space in the existing building will be used for postal purposes.

It is not proposed at this stage to make provision for a new official post office building at Beaconsfield.

page 345

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1960

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th March (vide page 308), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
^Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The bill now before the Senate has one simple purpose - that of extending the term of the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Patrick McGovern, for one year from 3rd April. The Commissioner will be 65 on that date. The provision requiring that his services terminate then is contained in the Income Tax Act. Apart from that fact, it is a rule of law set up generally for the Public Service of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, it cannot be altered without a further measure affecting or qualifying the law. It is very proper, if it is to be done at all, that it shall come before the Parliament in the form of a bill. That is the bill we are now considering.

The Government has given two reasons for the proposal to extend the term in this case. It has pointed out that a recently appointed committee is investigating the taxation laws and it would be desirable that, with all his experience, Sir Patrick McGovern should be available to that committee. More than that, I take it the Government is concerned to assure that in putting any views to the committee, Sir Patrick McGovern will be armed with the records and have at his disposal all the facilities of the Taxation Branch in staff and data.

The second reason that the Government gives is this: The Government has embarked upon a complete re-organization of the Taxation Branch owing to the growth of work, and only quite recently the Parliament approved the appointment of a Second Commissioner for the purpose. That re-organization will require extensive planning, and time will be taken in bedding it down, as it were.

The Opposition, on considering the matter, has decided not to oppose the bill. There was some little hesitation about that because the Opposition does not lightly discard the principle of retirement at 65 years. That hesitation has since been broken down somewhat by what the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has had to say further on the subject in replying to the debate in another place. We think, as an Opposition, that it was legitimate to say that one might have expected that provision would have been made for a successor to Sir Patrick McGovern long enough ahead to enable the change to take place on the scheduled date. Secondly, the hesitation was caused by the thought that the reappointment of Sir Patrick might block avenues of promotion for others in the branch. We are reassured on that point by what Mr. Harold Holt said on 23rd March in another place, when he spoke about the Second Commissioner, Mr. Denis O’sullivan, and, in my view, very properly accorded ‘him warm praise for his efficiency, capacity, and suitability in every respect to succeed Sir Patrick. He concluded by saying -

Had Sir Patrick McGovern not been willing to carry on for the extra year there is no doubt, in my mind, that Mr. O’sullivan would have been appointed to the succession.

Referring to the decision to extend the commissioner’s term, Mr. Harold Holt said -

It is a decision with which not only Sir Patrick McGovern has indicated his full occurrence, but, I am glad to be able to tell the House, Mr. O’sullivan also indicated his own full support for the move that has been made.

That rather disposes of one matter that caused some hesitation to the Opposition in reaching its conclusion.

It is rather rare, but not unknown, to have the term of a permanent head extended. We of the Opposition supported this Government’s proposal in 1951 to extend the term of a very experienced Chief Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Mooney, until he was 70 years of age. We thought that there were exceptional circumstances and we did not oppose the bill. The only other instance that occurs to my mind was when Mr. Brophy, the AuditorGeneral, retired in 1954. On that occasion the Government presented a bill that the Opposition did not oppose. The measure now before us is the third such bill presented by this Government in ten years.

Whilst there is some reluctance to take up the attitude that we are taking in this matter, having regard to the broad rule of law - it is not so much a matter of principle as a rule of law - that people retire at 65 years of age, we have no hesitation if we look solely at the qualifications of the commissioner himself. We think it reasonable enough, in the circumstances outlined by the Government, to allow the bill to pass without opposition. Nothing that might cause us to hesitate has reference to the efficiency or ability of the commissioner. I have had the pleasure of knowing him in his office throughout the whole fourteen years of his term. From 1946 to 1949 during the period of the Labour Government I had a very intimate association with him and his senior officers as a member of the Taxation Advisory Committee of the then government. From the government side I was associated with Mr. Scullin on that particular committee. So I have had a very long opportunity of observing Sir Patrick and his branch at close quarters.

In the intervening years, one has had experience, on many taxation matters, with Sir Patrick and his officers, and one could not help but feel from beginning to end that the very high capacity and high degree of efficiency of Sir Patrick were reflected right down through the various grades of his branch. One almost invariably finds that that is the case. If one looks at the lower grades, one can generally form an assessment in advance of tho quality and capacity of the man at the top. The reverse is also true. When a highly efficient man is in charge of a department, his character, tone and efficiency permeate right through the department.

I pay tribute to Sir Patrick McGovern for the fact that the Taxation Branch, with some 7,000 employees handling about £800,000,000 per annum, is a highly efficient, highly mechanized part of the Public Service. I do not suppose that there is one senator who has not had contact with officers of the branch in relation to parliamentary matters and perhaps on behalf of constituents in one way or another. One can be assured all the time of very firm, but very just and very courteous treatment at the hands of the commissioner whose term is being extended. That is the invariable approach that one encounters. Though he may say “ No “ firmly, he at least does say it very courteously.

I feel that I should comment, too, upon the model presentation by the Taxation Branch of bills to this Parliament. All of us know the great convenience of having a printed explanatory memorandum giving the fullest possible explanation of every clause of a bill. Any one who cannot master the explanation is defeated really only by the complexity of the subjectmatter and not by any defect in the explanatory memorandum. I have said on more than one occasion from this place that I wish every department would present its bills in nearly as good a form as the Taxation Branch in fact does.

In furthering, by a lack of opposition, the continuance of Sir Patrick McGovern in office, knowing his devotion to duty, we on this side are quite sure that he will devote his remaining year to promoting the very necessary review of the taxation laws which the Parliament makes and Sir Patrick only administers. He will, I know, certainly take steps to ease himself out of the chair and gradually ease his successor into that position, at the same time facilitating the re-organization that is in progress in the branch. Sir Patrick is and has been unquestionably a most outstanding public servant. I am certain that his retention for one year will be for the good of the branch and the good of the service in general. I congratulate him upon being so fit and well in body and mind as he approaches his 65th year, and I trust that he will enjoy the further year that is to be given to him by this bill and will retire at the end of that period as fit and well as he is now.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- This is a very small bill ar.d it concerns only one individual. Nevertheless it deserves some consideration. 1 for my part have no objection to the particular decision that has been taken in the circumstances, but I do regret that it represents an infringement not of a rule of law as I understand the phrase - here I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), although a particular provision of the statute is to be amended - but of a principle of great importance.

I want to say at the outset that I do not intend to make this an occasion to treat Sir Patrick to a foreword this year for his farewell next year. All I wish to say, in order to ‘make understood any comments I shall utter later, is that I have great respect both for his integrity and his capacity. But he occupies a statutory office created by this Parliament. It is one of the few that Parliament has surrounded with very strong safeguards. The Taxation Administration Act specifically provides that any person appointed to the office of Commissioner of Taxation shall be appointed for seven years. A guaranteed fixed term - seven years - is provided! Then provision is made that if the occupant at the time of his last appointment is over the age of 58 years the term of his appointment shall be for a period which shall expire upon his attaining the age of 65 years. We give to the occupant of this office that fixed tenure so that we shall be sure that his responsibility is to Parliament in the first place, and so that he shall rest assured in the knowledge that he is independent of any executive or administration. In those circumstances he is expected to carry out his tremendously important and confidential duties and - from the point of view of some of the enormous penalties, the formulation of which lie within his discretion at present - his quasi-judicial duties.

An office of this sort has grown in importance to a degree which we never foresaw when Sir Patrick was appointed. By that statement I mean to say only that over the last fifteen years the office of Commissioner of Taxation, compared with what it was twenty years ago, has grown tremendously. Therefore, so far from diminishing the independence of that office it is our constant duty to increase its independence and its responsibility which is not to the government of the day but to the Parliament.

I should like to make one or two general observations about the hierarchy in this respect. Judges, of course, have great security in office, which was secured after a long contest. By reason of that traditional security they have become the proverbial custodians of British liberty as it affects every soul in the country. Next to the judges we have the Auditor-General. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the Auditor-General’s position was the subject in recent years of legislation similar to that which we are now considering. Section 5a of the Audit Act provides that the AuditorGeneral for the Commonwealth shall cease to hold office upon attaining the age of 65 years. The act also provides that he shall not be removed from office except upon an address from both Houses of the Parliament. If the Governor-General has suspended the officer, then, unless both Houses of the Parliament agree with that suspension, he shall be restored to his office. The importance of the Commissioner of Taxation is indicated by the provisions of the Taxation Administration Act which states that unless both Houses of the Parliament agree with any cause for his suspension from office, he shall be restored. Section 6 (3.) of the act of 1953 provides that in such a case the commissioner shall be restored to office by the Governor-General unless each House of the Parliament, within fifteen sitting days of that House after the statement has been laid before it, declares by resolution that the Commissioner of Taxation ought to be removed from office.

I think that the existence of that provision is an indication of the importance that we should attach to the security of this particular office. 1 ask the Senate to bear with me in what I have to say. The reason for the extension of Sir Patrick’s term has been given as being mainly related to the functions of the present committee of inquiry. There is one matter in relation to this to which the attention of the committee may profitably be directed. If the Minister will be good enough, through his officers, to direct the attention of the committee to section 183 (3.) of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the committee will see that a different form of security is provided for members of boards of review. Boards of review in the discharge of their functions hear appeals from the decisions of the commissioner. These appeals are resorted to voluntarily by taxpayers who can make the choice of appealing to a court of law or to a board of review. The fact that the boards of review have been supplied with so much business is an indication of the confidence that the community has grown to know should be reposed in them.

Members of a board of review can be removed from office, and unless they obtain a petition from both Houses of the Parliament they remain out of office. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Taxation and the Auditor-General remain in office unless both Houses of the Parliament agree with the decision of the Executive to remove them. I repeat that members of a board of review remain out of office merely upon suspension by the Executive unless both Houses positively pray by way of petition for their restoration. There is some danger in that procedure. An officer should be secure in his position and should be removed only if the Executive can get the endorsement for his suspension from both Houses of the Parliament.

Feeling that time is not exceedingly scarce in the Senate this week, I mention that there is another aspect of this bill to which I want to direct the attention of the Senate. I begin by saying that the United

States Senate has made itself great because of its statutory powers in relation to the important administrative judicial posts in that country. Because the United States Senate has to give its approval to the appointment, as well as the dismissal, of the most senior and important posts in the administration, it is a repository of great power. I have raised my voice from time to time against the growing tendency of governments to whittle away the powers of this Australian Senate in respect of the remuneration payable to the occupants of high offices. At the present time we are passing a bill in relation to the continuance in office of one particular officer because the act requires that this officer shall retire at the age of 65 years. Any extension of his term of office requires the approval of both Houses of the Parliament. I think that fact underlines the need for this chamber to retain a prerogative, namely, that in respect of all the important posts in the Administration it should have an effective say, not for the purpose of throwing any spanner in the works but so that the Administration shall do better with the aid of review.

Despite the fact that only one officer is concerned on this occasion, the extension of his term is not a matter for an AttorneyGeneral’s Minute, for the determination of the Governor-General, or for a resolution of the House of Representatives. It is a matter which requires the concurrence of both Houses of the Parliament in the form of a statute. I think that is very important when it is applied to the Commissioner of Taxation because, in one case that went to the Privy Council - I think it was the case of Lanes Motors, reported in the law reports within the last twelve months - the Commissioner of Taxation imposed penalties amounting to either £250,000 or £750,000 in one particular assessment. The decision as to whether the amount should be £750,000 or £250,000 was left at the uninhibited discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. An officer who holds such enormous powers as that occupies a tremendously important office, and although 1 recognize that the statute gives the taxpayer the right to have the matter of discretion reviewed by boards of review, I do submit that the time’ has come when the original assessment should undergo a much more searching process than the mere decision of an officer, in his private office, no matter how exalted his position may be, if the assessment exceeds a certain amount. At the time when these powers of penalty were given to the Commissioner of Taxation, it was never dreamt that their fiscal importance would reach to such high figures.

The next matter to which I wish to refer relates to the infringement of the statute upon the general public service structure. lt is clearly provided by the Taxation Administration Act that neither the Commissioner nor the Second Commissioner is subject to the Public Service Act, although the Taxation Administration Act does contain a provision giving conformity with the Public Service Act in connexion with the retirement of the Commissioner. There are two aspects of this matter. One is the particular impact that any alteration makes upon other members of the service who have grown up in the Public Service with certain accruing rights. For instance, the Second Commissioner can always expect that when the Commissioner reaches the age of 65 years it is his turn for advancement. I put it in no more pointed way! than that- It is a legitimate accrual of opportunity that any subordinate officer expects. I am glad to know that this aspect has been adverted to by Mr. Harold Holt, who has stated that the Second Commissioner supports this proposal. Of course, a subordinate officer would be somewhat embarrassed in not supporting the point of view, but I have no reason to say that in this instance the support is not cordial, genuine and thought to be well merited. Nevertheless, I submit that a course such as this should not become a practice arising out of individual executive decisions. If we are to have a rule, it is important that the rule be observed on all occasions, otherwise the recipient of an unfavorable decision could feel aggrieved and those who, in the last few years before they reach retiring age, have an expectation that the executive will bring in a favorable decision and promote a bill like the one before us, could become amenable to government courses. For that reason, 1 submit that a course such as this should be embarked upon not lightly, but very advisedly.

As to the general aspect of this theme, why is it that in this generation when our longevity has been increased as compared with 30 years ago and the great percentage of skilled executives at 65 years of age now are as capable as were those of 60 years of age years ago, we do not address ourselves to the situation? Why is it that, instead of turning our skilled executives out into the pension field or into subordinate capacities, we do not seek to conserve talent which age now demands should relinquish office? I know that the Labor Party will flinch at what I am about to suggest just as in the 1930’s it flinched at and resented all immigration into this country because it argued that immigrants could compete with Australians for work. I know that the members of the Labour Party will flinch at the idea of deferring the age of retirement but, to my way of thinking, it is a satire on the outlook of present administration when we see commissioners of taxation, auditorsgeneral, and under-secretaries to the Treasury going back to civilian jobs of a clerical nature when they have tremendous skill and experience which they are still capable of ably putting at the disposal of the public.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the fact that the Government has appointed a committee on taxation and deems it desirable that Sir Patrick McGovern should remain as Commissioner of Taxation. I do not disagree with that view but we must admit that at least another view deserves consideration. That view is that Sir Patrick McGovern might have begun his retirement by either becoming a member of the committee or being retained in a special capacity by the Government on a full-time basis for the next twelve months in order adequately to present all matters before the committee, thus giving the committee the benefit of his undivided and uninterrupted services during the time that it is deliberating.

A few weeks ago, I asked about the personnel, functions and time programme of the committee, but at that time there was not very much knowledge, even on the ministerial bench, about those matters; To-day, I was gratified to receive from my colleague recognition of that question; I am now told that Sir George Ligertwood, a former judge of the South Australian Supreme Court, is to be chairman of the committee and that other members are

Mr. D. B. Lewington, Mr. D. G. Molesworth, Mr. F. C. Bock and Mr. J. A. Neale. This indicates that the committee has been recruited from men who have specialist knowledge of the income tax field.

The functions of the committee are to examine and to inquire into the existing laws of the Commonwealth relating to the taxation of income for the purpose of ascertaining any anomalies and unnecessary complexities or other similar defects that exist in the laws, and to inquire into other taxation laws excluding customs. Further, in making its recommendations, the committee shall have regard to the cost to Consolidated Revenue, and shall take it to be necessary that the Commonwealth continue to receive revenue not less in total than the revenue that might be expected under the existing laws. So it is a pruning committee but nevertheless one that could be of tremendous value. Let me cite, as an example of what I am referring to, the bill that was passed by us last year to encourage the search for oil. With all the goodwill in the world and with a degree of effort that does not flag more readily than that of my colleagues, I applied myself persistently to the task of getting an understanding of that measure but I regret to say that it still completely baffles me. I was completely baffled by expressions of the kind favoured by the Parliamentary Draftsman, the provisions that commend themselves to the income tax office and the complexity of the Constitution. I venture to say that nobody but a Philadelphian lawyer would be able to understand that legislation. It now occupies four pages of the statute-book and there it is for the guidance of the community, which is at its mercy.

From time to time Senator Laught has adverted to the same aspect in our income tax legislation. This committee on taxation is now working on a pruning process, but it will have to do a lot of hard work if it is to achieve any worth-while result in a short space of time. Is it anticipated that the twelve months for which Sir Patrick’s term of office has been extended will see the work of the committee completed? I know not, but during this time Sir Patrick will have all his ordinary administrative duties to attend to as well as usher in a reorganization. T was surprised to hear Senator McKenna say that the income tax office would be completely re-organized, but some re-organization will be involved in the appointment of the second Second Com.misioner. Now ‘that is an instance of the novelties that I feel are to be cherished here. Fancy calling a Third Commissioner a second Second Commissioner! But let me proceed.

Several times I have’ sought some indication of the time that this committee will require for its investigations and my latest communication, received to-day from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) who represents the Treasurer in the Senate, says that the committee ha& already sat in Sydney from 8th to 10th March and from 15th to 17th March. It then says -

Further sittings of the Committee have been planned and it is likely that the Committee will meet in various State capital cities on six occasions during the next three months.

Advertisements have asked for written submissions to be made to the Committee by 31st March, 1960.

It is understood that some organizations wil) be unable to complete their submissions by that date and at this stage the nature and number of submissions to be made is not known. In these circumstances, it is not possible to forecast the time that the Committee will require to complete its activities. However, the Committee desires to make a thorough examination of the problems involved and to complete its task as soon as practicable.

I mention that - it is the first time I have had even that indication, indefinite as it is - for the information of honorable senators and the public at large in the hope that those who are affected by this committee’s deliberations will get to know when it is likely to sit. If all matters appropriate for the committee’s consideration are submitted to it in order to aid it in eliminating complexities and in simplifying the law, the time taken by the committee will extend long beyond the term of twelve months for which Sir Patrick’s term has been extended.

I do not oppose the bill. I regret its infringement of principle. I recognize that the Senate is given an opportunity to deal with this matter affecting not an important officer but a very great and important office. I hope that this Senate will jealously maintain its right in relation not merely to the continuance of such office but to the preservation of such office, and in that regard I have in mind also the remuneration proper for such office from time to time.

Senator LAUGHT (South Australia) 14.21]. - I support the bill. I have listened with great interest to the remarks of Senator McKenna and Senator Wright. I support fully Senator McKenna’s remarks relating to the capability and integrity of and the great public service rendered by Sir Patrick McGovern. Senator Wright’s comments are always interesting, particularly when they refer to matters of public administration. I agree with Senator Wright that this is an opportunity for Parliament to consider a high office and the extension for one year of the term of office of the present holder. It is one of the few occasions when Parliament does consider such matters. The case of the AuditorGeneral was another one.

The right to deal with cases such as the present one must be jealously guarded by Parliament. However, I do not take such a gloomy view - if I may put it that way - of what is happening to-day as Senator Wright took. I believe that the Government in its wisdom has approached this matter, as it affects Sir Patrick and Mr. O’sullivan, the Second Commissioner, with great tact and has evolved a scheme that will became an act of Parliament when the bill is passed by the Senate and receives the assent of the Governor-General.

J am inclined to agree with Senator Wright that it may well be more than a year from now before the report of the Ligertwood committee is completed. However, we are applying our minds to-day to a bill that says in effect that Sir Patrick McGovern will retire not next week but one year from next week, and I wholeheartedly support the measure. 1 think a comment or two from me on some of the general administrative achievements during Sir Patrick’s term of office will be appropriate. Sir Patrick took his post as Commissioner for Taxation in 1946. At that time, as I understand the position, the pay-as-you-earn system was in its teething stage. In a very short time, thanks to the lead given by Sir Patrick and the officers of the department, pay-as-you-earn taxation became part of our economic system. I feel sure that all employees approve of the system in its entirety and expect it to be continued. Then the implementation of provisional taxation, with which many problems were associated, proceeded under the guidance of Sir Patrick McGovern. I think it is to the credit of Sir Patrick and his officers - there are 7,000 of them in Australia - that the pay-as-you-earn system and provisional tax have become parts of our taxation system that are entirely accepted. I can speak with some experience on this matter. I know people who approve so much of the provisional tax system that although they have been given an opportunity to make a self-assessment, whereby they would pay less in provisional tax than the amount assessed by the Taxation Branch, they have been quite prepared to pay the amount assessed, in order to have something down south, as it were, to help them to meet their next income tax assessment. It has been due to the tact and the understanding of the Taxation Branch that the payas.youearn system and provisional taxation have been so successfully implemented.

In 1952 and succeeding years problems occurred as a result of a great drop in farm incomes. There was a good deal of favorable comment on the speed with which the Taxation Branch made refunds of tax - amounts that were rightly refundable - to primary producers whose incomes fell very much below those of previous years. Over the last ten years, there has been a very great understanding by the Taxation Branch of the many problems that have confronted it. This understanding has stemmed from the personality of the Commissioner himself.

On the more spectacular side of taxation administration, agreements have been negotiated with certain overseas countries to avoid double taxation. One was negotiated with the United Kingdom some thirteen years ago, another with the United States of America about eight years ago and, more recently, a double taxation agreement was negotiated with Canada. All these agreements have been negotiated during the term of office of the present Commissioner of Taxation. The negotiation of these agreements has helped very considerably to enhance Australia’s prestige as a trading nation. In particular, it has encouraged investment in Australia from the countries I have mentioned and, in certain instances, Australian investment in those countries. So, on this score, we can make some more notches to the credit of the present Commissioner.

It has been Sir Patrick McGovern’s duty to implement the findings of certain committees, including the Spooner committee in 1950-51 and the Hulme committee on depreciation about five years later. In order to implement the decisions of those committees and to prepare statements for presentation to the Parliament, Sir Patrick needed to understand thoroughly the technical problems involved. I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) hit the nail on the head when he complimented the Taxation Branch on the manner in which it had prepared memoranda supporting measures that successive Treasurers have presented to the Parliament effecting changes in our legislation concerning technical matters.

As Senator Wright has pointed out, the Ligertwood committee has commenced its work, but a year or more may elapse before it furnishes a report for presentation to the Parliament. Although Sir Patrick’s extended term of office might expire before then, I am sure that in the meantime he will lay down a pattern for the way in which any proposed changes of the taxation law shall be presented to the Parliament.

I have come to regard Sir Patrick McGovern as an undertaker because, during his term of office both federal land tax and the entertainment tax have been abolished.

Senator Robertson:

– I wish he would get busy on the payroll-tax!

Senator LAUGHT:

Senator Robertson’s interjection prompts me to say that I also regard Sir Patrick as a surgeon, because he has lopped off several bad parts of taxation administration that needed lopping. He has also been responsible, in an administrative capacity, for the elimination from the statutes of this country of a number of objectionable features in relation to sales-tax. During his term of office, also, many people have been exempted from payroll and other taxes. Speaking figuratively, I would say that in an administrative capacity, both as an undertaker and as a surgeon, Sir Patrick McGovern has rendered great service to this nation. I place on record our appreciation of the manner in which he has prepared material for presentation to the Parliament.

I should like now to refer to another manner in which Sir Patrick has assisted the Treasury. Year after year the AuditorGeneral furnishes his report. An aspect of the report that always intrigues me is the amount of tax that has been assessed but not collected by 30th June each year. This amount has steadily decreased year by year and to-day it is only about one-half what it was four or five years ago, despite the fact that to-day a greater amount of money is collected in tax than was collected at that time. This is a very important factor from a national point of view. It enables the Budget to be prepared on the basis of money actually in the Government’s coffers, not money that is still owing to the Taxation Branch. The systematic approach that has been adopted by the commissioner and his officers has been largely responsible for this improvement.

From my own experience, I know many instances in which sympathetic consideration has been given to requests for the postponement of the payment of tax by people who have suffered loss through fire or flood or other calamities. This proves that the Commissioner’s approach to the problem of outstanding taxes has not been ruthless. Although some of the remarks I have made are not strictly relevant to the bill before the Senate, I think I have demonstrated the significance of the things that have been achieved by the Taxation Branch under the administration of Sir Patrick McGovern.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Very briefly, I want to endorse the remarks of the doubting Thomases who are not supporting this bill to-day. There is a feeling of uneasiness in the community, because this is not the first occasion on which the term of office of a high public servant has been extended. Secondly, I think we are at a disadvantage in these matters because of the necessity to deal with individuals. Invariably, in a measure that is introduced for a specific purpose, such as extending the term of office of a public servant, the personal element creeps into the matter, and one cannot always say the things he would like to say. I think this is the third occasion during the last three years - you may correct me, Mr. Deputy President, if I am wrong - on which a matter of this nature has come before us. The first occasion concerned the then AuditorGeneral, and the second, the then Chief Conciliation Commissioner. On each of the previous occasions, we accepted as valid reasons for an extension of the term of office the statement that was made by the Minister who introduced the relevant legislation. We have had three such instances already, and that rather suggests that there may be more of them in the future. Other departments, because of special problems that they have to meet from time to time, also might be able to put forward reasons which, so far as we could tell, would be just as good as the reasons that are being advanced for the extension of Sir Patrick McGovern’s term pf office. We have no chance to examine these matters and must take the advice of the Government which, no doubt, in turn is advised by the departments.

Senator Wright attempted to prognosticate what the Labour Party would do in similar circumstances. I suggest that that remains to be seen. Sometimes even I, a member of the Labour Party, have trouble in foretelling what we are going to do. I think it follows, Mr. Deputy President, that since similar requests to that which we are now considering have been made on three previous occasions, it is time that the Government considered whether the law relating to the retiring age of public servants, which we are asked to amend from time to time, is as strong as it should be. Perhaps the Government should consider whether, in respect of the top echelons of the Public Service, there is a clear-cut argument for extension of the retiring age in respect of officers in certain categories, instead of dealing with the matter on an ad hoc basis, as we do now. Perhaps it should be decided that the retiring age of officers who move into the higher administrative posts should be more than 65 years. I do not know whether it would be proper to do so; I merely say that it appears that the time has come for the Government to consider the point.

Usually, when a civil servant becomes a senior administrative officer of a department he is no longer young. In most cases, such officers have passed middle age. There may be arguments for and against such a proposal, but it is something that the Government might consider. By extending the term of office of certain officers in the way in which extension is effected at the moment, the Government is opening the gate to requests from other departments for similar extensions. I should think that it would be difficult to convince a department that there should be no extension in respect of the term of office of its senior officers when that of other officers had already been extended.

The evidence that the Government has placed before us has prompted me to look at this matter more closely. I understand that the Second Commissioner in the Taxation Branch has given his blessing to the extension of Sir Patrick McGovern’s term, but that is not surprising. There is nothing in the act that provides that the GovernorGeneral must appoint the second officer to the first officer’s position when that becomes vacant. Any one of a group of people may be selected, or a person from outside the branch or some State officer with a specialized knowledge of taxation may be appointed. I do not think it is sufficient to put one person on the spot, merely because he happens to be the second officer, and to say to him, “ What do you think about this? “ The fact that he consents is not, in my opinion, strong evidence in favour of an extension.

The only other point that I want to make concerns the fact that the Government now knows, twelve months in advance, the exact time of Sir Patrick McGovern’s retirement. I suggest that two or three months before his retirement steps should be taken to appoint his successor. I know that there is provision for officers to act in higher positions, but I have never thought that the Public Service takes sufficient advantage of the prior knowledge that it has of the retirement of its officers. I feel that it thereby fails to make appointments as soon as they should be made. In many departments, officers are obliged to act for lengthy periods in higher positions before appointments are made to them. The Government knows, twelve months in advance, that Sir Patrick McGovern will retire on a certain date, and therefore it could appoint his successor at any time within the next twelve months.

As Senator Wright has said, public servants base their promotional aspirations on the rule that public servants must retire when they reach the age of 65 years. To extend the term of office of certain officers so that they will not be required to retire at 65 offends against the spirit of that rule. Therefore, I hope that the comments that have been made in the course of the discussion to-day will be taken as a mild criticism of the practice of extending the retiring age in certain circumstances, and as a warning ; that although we agree to the extension on this occasion, a certain degree of disquiet is <evident amongst honorable senators on both : sides of the chamber. The Government should either say to the departments that the Public Service retiring age is 65 years and that departments which wish to extend the retiring age in respect of certain officers will have to get over their difficulties in some other way, or it should say that the time has come to amend the law in respect of the retiring age of public servants, not only for certain officers but for all officers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 354

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1960

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29th March (vide page 308), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- The purpose of this bill is to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1958 in order to give Queensland additional representation on the Australian Wheat Board. When the board was established in 1939, Queensland was allowed to have one representative on it. Why it is proposed to increase Queensland’s representation by an additional member is not clear to me, because in most fields of endeavour, including sport and commercial matters, it has always been considered that it is a fair proposition to have one Queenslander to two representatives of any other State.

Queensland is not a major wheatproducing State. Its yields have fluctuated from 5,000,000 bushels per annum up to about 15,000,000 bushels. The probability is that Queensland will never become a major wheat-producing State and that it will not produce as much wheat as that produced in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Nevertheless the quality of the wheat that Queensland produces is perhaps higher than that of any other wheat produced in the Commonwealth. Queensland wheat has a high protein content and is sought after by the manufacturers of bread in other States.

I believe that the appointment of another Queenslander to the Australian Wheat Board will improve the quality of the board, because Queensland undoubtedly has had far more experience of wheat matters than the Commonwealth has had. As I have indicated, the Commonwealth established the board in 1939, but as far back as 1920 Queensland had its wheat pool. It is rather interesting to note that the main purpose of the Australian Wheat Board is to stabilize the wheat industry. That, of course, can best be done by ensuring that the growers engaged in the industry receive a fair price for their product.

As far back as 1920, Queensland had its wheat pool and since then it has dealt with nearly all the problems which confront wheat-growers. It has its own hail insurance fund which to-day is in a fairly healthy condition. It also established facilities to make advances to growers so that they could purchase corn sacks and to make seed wheat available during periods of distress. Over the years, these arrangements have greatly assisted the wheat-growers in Queensland. Therefore, a representative grower going from Queensland to the office of the Australian Wheat Board would have awealth of experience behind him.

I mention another matter in passing to show that Queensland has not been backward in seeing that some form of organized marketing has been available to other primary industries. Probably its actions in that regard over the years have been outstanding. To-day we have no less than eighteen boards or councils functioning in relation to branches of primary industry in Queensland. I am sure a list of them would interest honorable senators. It includes the Butter Marketing Board, State Wheat Board, Queensland Canegrowers Council, Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, Brisbane Milk Board, Egg Marketing Board, Cheese Marketing Board, Peanut Marketing Board, Cotton Marketing Board, Queensland Dairymen’s State Council, Atherton Tablelands Maize Marketing Board, Central Queensland Egg Marketing Board, Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board, Barley Marketing Board, Ginger Marketing Board, Grain

Sorghum Marketing Board, Navy Bean Marketing Board, Northern Pig Marketing Board and one or two others. Perhaps this list might amuse some honorable senators, but I feel sure the producers engaged in those industries do not regard their establishment lightly. The fact that those boards, including the State Wheat Board, have stood the test of time is evidence of their value to those engaged in the relevant industries.

Organized marketing has done a great deal for the wheat industry by reason of the fact that it enjoys a guaranteed price for wheat sold upon the home market and also for wheat up to 100,000,000 bushels sold abroad. This has removed speculation entirely from one of Australia’s major industries. The supply and demand factor no longer enters into wheat marketing as it used to do. As a matter of fact, it has been almost squelched. We know, of course, that the International Wheat Agreement, to which Australia is a signatory, assists us considerably in disposing of our surplus stocks of wheat. The demand for wheat is not regular from year to year; nor is wheat production in the Commonwealth regular. In fact, it is rather interesting to study the figures relating to production and export of wheat over the past few years. The relative figures are -

If honorable senators have followed those figures, they will note that the fluctuation has been fairly great. At the end of some years, very small quantities of wheat remained on hand. We notice that in 1958-59, 215,000,000 bushels were produced and 53,000,000 bushels of wheat were required for home consumption. After providing 16,000,000 bushels for seed, the quantity left for export was 146,000,000 bushels.

I recall that last November, the guaranteed price of wheat for home consumption was increased from 4s. 8d. to 5s. a bushel. The very next day, the price of bread went up by a half-penny a loaf throughout Australia. I dare say that increase was made with the full agreement of the Commonwealth Government; for so far as the local guaranteed price is concerned, the Government can take action by which it will not be required to meet anything in regard to the guaranteed price for local consumption because it can agree to an increase in the price of bread. We would then have this situation: The wheat would be sold in the first instance by the Australian Wheat Board to the millers; the millers of course would sell their flour to the bakers at a certain increased price to recoup them for the extra charge, and then the bakers would be entitled to increase the price of bread. That happened in November or December last year; so in fact, the Australian public can be made to carry the guarantee that is in operation by the Government.

The stabilization scheme that has been in operation for a number of years is worth examining at this stage. I shall quote from the balance-sheet as at 1st July, 1958. The balance then was £9,362,107. There were certain receipts during the year such as the wheat export charge and income from investments. Incidentally, the latter income is very substantial, amounting to £402,229. But all told, the balance for the last financial year was £10,934,978. The stabilization fund stands at that sum and I would say, because of the expansion in the industry and the number engaged in it, the amount mentioned may be regarded as peanuts. It is not worth talking about. For the stabilization fund to be worth while, it should be increased to about £18,000,000 or £20,000,000.

The funds of the Queensland Wheat Board also are in a fairly healthy position. This board’s assets include land and buildings valued at £1,226,497 and plant and machinery valued at £73,222. Its investments include Commonwealth Treasury bonds valued at £310,000 and it has also invested £100,000 in the State Electricity Commission. From its hail insurance fund in 1957-58 it paid £4,393. Last year it was required to pay £159,000 from that fund, which now has a balance of £246,000. Perhaps the Queensland Wheat Board is unique in having such an insurance fund. Many primary industries do not operate any insurance scheme and any losses incurred are borne by the individual growers. That is why associations representing those growers come here from time to time and ask the Commonwealth Government for charity to help the growers out of their financial difficulties.

I think that the guaranteed price scheme is a good scheme. I am not one who says that any man engaged in any undertaking should be required to work for twelve months, using his plant, performing his chores day in day out, without being assured of some income. When all is said and done, the wheat-growers take their place in the affairs of Australia. As is well known, we are a bread-eating race, not a rice-eating race, and therefore wheat must be grown to satisfy our demand. It is essential that there be a body of wneatgrowers in the community. The more security we can give to those men by way of a guaranteed price, the more stable the wheat industry will be. The Australian Wheat Board is, perhaps, more distant from the growers than are the State wheat boards. It can, I feel sure, remove the element of chance that exists in the industry at present and assure the growers of a reasonable living standard and a sufficient income from their properties. Because another Queenslander is to take his place on the Australian Wheat Board, I support the bill.

Senator PEARSON:
South Australia

– The purpose of the bill is to give Queensland a second permanent member on the Australian Wheat Board. Queensland has always had one permanent member and, as Senator Benn said, since 1958 she has had in addition one part-time member. Experience since that time has satisfied the Australian Wheat Board, which recommended this legislation, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) that without continuity of sitting, the part-time member cannot be expected to get the necessary well-balanced view of wheat matters. To enable him to get that view, he is to be given a permanent seat on the board. I endorse this proposal to give Queensland a second permanent member of the board. As Senator Benn said, Queensland produces high-grade wheat which is easily saleable. For that reason alone, I think, Queensland should be given extra consideration.

In addition to supporting the bill, I want to make a few comments. Senator Benn implied - I do not think he was being unfair about it - that the wheat industry was enjoying a sheltered, protected and fortunate position. Whilst that may be true in a sense, I want it to be understood that the wheat-growers voted for this stabilization scheme. There is another side to the question about which I shall have more to say as I go along. It is acknowledged that the protection accorded to Australian wheatgrowers is not without justification. In the past they have been accused of receiving unfair protection, but I think that such an accusation is not true. It is argued by wheat-growers that any protection they receive is at the same time a concession to Australian consumers of bread. The value of that concession to consumers over the years has been estimated as at least £200,000,000. That is because at times wheat prices overseas have reached fantastic levels. During that period, because of the stabilization, to which the Australian farmers readily agreed, consumers in this country received substantial concessions.

It is now said that the wheat-grower is in a favoured position. I say that he is entitled to such protection as he is now getting, because he made to the Australian consumer that concession of about £200;000,000. He agreed to the marketing scheme which gives Australian consumers wheat at prices that are low compared with world parity prices. The Australian price was some 6s. a bushel, when we were receiving more than £1 a bushel for export wheat. That is no mean concession, which should be remembered by Australian consumers of bread. Whilst we acknowledge that we are in a somewhat favoured position, I am perturbed lest the burden become too much for the Australian Government to carry. I have suggested that wheat-growers have argued, and do argue, that they are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the taxpayers - the consumers - of Australia, hut this argument may not be sufficient to cause the guarantee, such as we know, to be carried on. I am referring particularly to the guaranteed price which we get for 100,000,000 bushels of our exportable surplus. That guarantee was granted, not as a result of stabilization, as Senator

Benn said, but as the result of the good graces of the Menzies Government. I emphasize that point.

Senator Hannaford:

– The cost of production is guaranteed.

Senator PEARSON:

– I thank Senator Hannaford for his interjection. The guarantee, of course, was in relation to the cost of production. One hundred million bushels of export wheat, which comprises most of our exportable surplus in a normal year, is covered by that guarantee. It is that portion which I think we are in danger of losing for reasons which I shall explain presently. I am afraid it will become an intolerable burden from which any government will shrink as time goes on.

Whilst wheat prices have risen due to inflation, in common with the prices of other commodities, at the same time we have to face the fact that prices are on the decline overseas. I think that is due to three main reasons. First, there are tremendous surpluses still existing, and increasing, in the United States and Canada. Secondly, there is an urge - an understandable urge, if I may say so - on the part of certain European consuming countries to become exporting countries or at least self-supporting in the matter of wheat. That is not speculation, it is history. The third factor which mitigates against the price of wheat rising, or being maintained in the future, is the unfair marketing practices which are indulged in by the United States in particular - dumping practices as we know them. These unfair trading practices are engaged in in an effort to keep down the surpluses which are continuing to build up in the United States in spite of all the best efforts of that country. All this is happening at a time when Australia relies on wheat - second only to wool, I think - to .maintain her ^balance of payments position in the -world, lt is a most unfortunate position.

The importance of wheat from the point of view of our balance of payments is, I think, partly the reason why the government of the day is willing to place the wheat industry in a sheltered position, if it can be called sheltered. The Government wants the wheat to be sold overseas, and in view of that fact wheat-growers themselves will have to take such steps as are -open .to them to put their own house in order. I shall have something more to say about that as I proceed.

It is a matter of the utmost urgency that we should not sit back under the shelter of the wall, as we do at present. We are apt to think that everything in the garden is lovely. Whilst this guaranteed price operates there is a measure of protection, but I am now looking to the time when that guaranteed price - at least as it applies to export wheat - will be too much for the government of the day to shoulder. It is an intolerable burden which at the moment looks like increasing instead of decreasing as a result of the factors to which I have referred. I do not want to be an alarmist, but I think it stands to reason that any government in Australia must have regard to this problem which is increasing rather than decreasing.

The benefit of the guarantee on export wheat will, unless renewed, shortly cease to exist. Wheat-growers will, in effect, fall right back into the arms of the government of the day. I repeat that I am afraid - J do not say this with any degree of certainty because perhaps the Menzies Government will surprise even me by continuing to support this industry - that the burden will be too intolerable.

Senator Sheehan:

– What do you say it will cost eventually?

Senator PEARSON:

– I have not named a figure and I do not name a figure but I do say that, in my humble opinion, it will become an intolerable burden for the Government to carry.

Senator Benn:

– In America ‘the wheat industry is a burden to the United States Government.

Senator PEARSON:

– I have no doubt about that, Mr. President. Having gone to .all sorts of trouble, and indulged in pricesupport schemes and all .the rest of it, .the United States Government has -encouraged, to some extent, the surpluses that now exist. I agree wholeheartedly that the surpluses which exist are an embarrassment to the -United States. That .country is doing its best to get out of that .embarrassment, but it is not .easy to gat :away from pricesupport programmes once you ,get into them. 1 want to deal particularly with the subject of the segregation of wheat. This is what I had in mind when I said that we must put our house in order if we expect to hold the markets we have. I think we have been forced into a position where we must agree to some sort of segregation scheme. If Australia is to export large quantities of wheat - we certainly do, and the Government wants us to continue to do so - we must agree to segregation. It is one foreseeable way by which we can meet the present position. It is the same old story. If we want to sell anything we must be prepared to meet the conditions which consumers and purchasers lay down. One of the conditions which they apply to Australian wheat is that it shall be of good quality and shall be either hard or soft. It must conform to certain standards. We must in future endeavour to produce a commodity, and market it, in such a condition that it will meet the requirements of consumer countries. That is a lesson we have learnt and one which we must remember. In other words the old f.a.q. system has had its day. I say that advisedly. The f.a.q. system served us well in the past and was all that we required when we could market our wheat without any difficulty. As I say, that state of affairs has passed. If a country wants hard wheat it must be supplied with hard wheat, and if it requires soft wheat it must be given soft wheat. If we are not prepared to do that we will find that we will not be supplying any wheat at all and will have to make way for a competitor who will.

Australia can produce, and does produce successfully both qualities of wheat. Queensland grows hard wheat. Victoria in the main grows soft varieties. In South Australia we grow both types.

Senator Nicholls:

– All sorts are grown in Tasmania.

Senator PEARSON:

– The point is that Australia as a whole can supply wheat of every quality that is demanded by consumers. Because we can supply it we must supply it under the conditions which consumers demand. With the concurrence of honorable senators, I incorporate in “ Hansard “ the following table setting out the varieties of wheat included in the semi-hard and soft categories. The varieties regarded as soft wheats are almost double the number classified as semi-hard.

I say in favour of South Australia that the method of segregating wheat” there is simple and effective. I am confident that if it were adopted by the other States it could do much to help the Australian Wheat Board in marketing wheat in general. Although South Australia is rapidly becoming a bulk delivery State, certain areas still deliver wheat in bags. In those areas, the growers indicate at the point of delivery whether they have semi-hard or soft wheat on their trucks and the wheat is then stacked in the appropriate stack.

Similarly, a grower who delivers in bulk indicates the variety he is delivering and it is stored in the silo reserved for that variety.

Senator Hannan:

– Is the wheat tested prior to delivery?

Senator PEARSON:

– Not as far as I know. I understand that it is graded according to varieties and the grower’s word is taken as to the variety being delivered. This system could do much to improve our markets in countries such as Rhodesia, where a particular variety is preferred. For instance, Rhodesia prefers hard wheat while Japan requires some soft wheat. I know that at the moment Rhodesia is one country with which we are anxious to build up trade in wheat, and I submit this suggestion as one method of inducing that country to take more wheat from us.

I come now to a matter about which I am hesitant to speak. It refers to the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir John Teasdale, who I am satisfied does not favour this cheap and convenient method which we have adopted in South Australia. I have great admiration for Sir John Teasdale.

Senator Robertson:

– He is a grand old man.

Senator PEARSON:

– He is, and he has done much for the industry, and what I am about to say is said with great reluctance. I refer to an article appearing in the Adelaide “Advertiser” on Friday, 25th March, 1960, over Sir John Teasdale’s name. In my opinion, Sir John makes it clear in that article that he does not favour the segregation system adopted in South Australia. I repeat that it is a cheap and effective system and I am sorry that he is not in agreement with it. The article states -

He said that last year South Australian authorities had separated semi-hard wheat from soft wheat, but this had not increased the total sale of Australian wheat, nor had it increased the price.

Sir John Teasdale further said that a change to the segregated system would cost millions of pounds for additional storage.

I deny that statement emphatically. The segregation system adopted in South Australia does not cost millions of pounds, nor even thousands of pounds to my know ledge. On the contrary, it is a simple system. Under it, the grower indicates the variety of wheat he is delivering, and the wheat is then put into the appropriate bin or stack.

I do not know what Sir John Teasdale means when he says that it has not increased the price of wheat. I point out firstly that South Australia has suffered a drought with the result that the quantities of wheat delivered in that State are very much below normal. It is obvious that if we have not the wheat to sell we cannot increase sales. Again I say I do not know what Sir John Teasdale has in mind when he says it has not improved the price. If it has not increased the price, it certainly has done nothing to decrease it. I have pointed out already that because of this system we have been able to meet Rhodesia’s requirements, and in that way, I suggest that, indirectly, this system has been responsible for increasing prices.

Senator Hannaford:

– It has been of great help to the local millers.

Senator PEARSON:

– It certainly has, and it has also been of great help to such countries as Rhodesia, Malaya and Ceylon, which are looking for some segregation of varieties. After all, if a country wants a particular type of wheat, be it hard or soft, why in Heaven’s name should we not make an effort to supply that particular type? Australia needs an expanding wheat market; she needs to sell wheat to any country that will buy a bushel from us, and I am confident that unless we make some effort to supply the variety required, it is hopeless to look for any expansion of markets. Our balance of payments position is most acute and we must sell all the wheat we can. 1 am sorry to have to criticize Sir John Teasdale in this way for he has been a very valued and trusted officer who has done much for the wheat industry. My Western Australian colleagues may take exception to what I have said about Sir John Teasdale, but I cannot help that. I say that with all kindness. I believe that because of his increasing age and his attitude towards segregation, Sir John Teasdale’s days are numbered.

Senator Courtice:

– This has not got much to do with the bill.

Senator PEARSON:

– I know that I have taken some liberties in my speech. I think the same attitude was adopted in the other chamber.

Senator Courtice:

– We may as well have a debate about the United Nations.

Senator PEARSON:

– I am not the only one who has taken liberties in the course of this debate. I was saying that Sir John Teasdale’s days are numbered. What we need on the Australian Wheat Board is a younger man - an active man - who will progress with the times. If Sir John Teasdale is not able or willing, because of his prejudices or because of his past activities, to progress with the times we must get somebody who will. This matter of segregation is vital to the wheat industry. It is vital to Australia that we segregate. The chairman of the board need not necessarily be a wheat-grower, but he should be a sound business man with a knowledge of wheatmarketing. That is the type of man we require as chairman of the Australian Wheat Board and I trust that such a man can be found in the near future.

Let me pay a tribute at this stage to the late Mr. C. T. Chapman, who was one of South Australia’s representatives on the board. I always regarded Mr. Chapman as a man who strove earnestly and long on behalf of the growers whom he represented. Many things can be recounted which stand to his credit. I do not wish to name them but it is sufficient for me to say that I regarded him as a most earnest representative on the board, and the board will be the poorer for his passing.

Likewise I pay a tribute to the work done by South Australia’s second representative on the board - Mr. Tom Shanahan. Mr. Shanahan is widely respected and his value to the Australian Wheat Board has been endorsed by the growers on more than one occasion. I trust that he will continue as South Australia’s representative for many years to come.

I have only one other comment to make and that is to say how much I appreciate the valuable work done on behalf of the wheat-growers by Mr. McEwen, the- Minister for Trade. The Australian Wheat Board has been able to sell wheat to Malaya, Rhodesia and Japan, and such sales are due to Mr. McEwen’s personal initiative. In fairness we must pay him this compliment. He is a great man and a great fighter for what he believes to be right. That remark applies in particular to his service to the wheat industry. He has been of great assistance to the Australian Wheat Board, whose job it is to sell wheat in competitive markets. I support the bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- As was stated by Senator Benn, who expressed the Opposition’s view on this bill, we on this side of the chamber intend to support the measure. The bill is a very simple one. It provides that Queensland’s representation on the Australian Wheat Board shall be increased from one member to two members. I dare say that when the bill was being debated in another place the whole matter of wheat stabilization was canvassed. I do not intend to go very deeply into that subject, but there are on or two points that I should like to make.

When the wheat stabilization scheme was first introduced and the subject of State representation on the Australian Wheat Board was being discussed, Queensland was not a very large producer of wheat. It is true, as Senator Benn said, that Queensland has long been a wheat-producing State and produces a very good class of wheat. In fact, a stabilization scheme was introduced in Queensland by a State Labour government. Because Labour’s policy has always been to endeavour to provide a fair reward to primary producers, wheat stabilization has been a subject in which we on this side of the Senate have been interested and for that reason, we are particularly interested in the measure now under consideration.

Before I go further I should like to compliment Senator Pearson on some aspects of his speech. I am not concerned with the quarrel that seems to be developing between some wheat-growers and the spokesmen for the wheat-growers as to whether Sir John Teasdale should be retained as chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. Nor am I concerned with Senator Pearson’s views about the f.a.q. standard of wheat. Certainly the present Government was very anxious to secure, the services of Sir John Teasdale. When Sir John Teasdale was appointed chairman of the board I thought that a very capable man was removed from the board by Mr. McEwen, who was then Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. At that time I felt that Sir John Teasdale must be an excellent man. I do not know what has happened to cause him to incur the displeasure of some of his former friends - the people who were eager to have him on the board - so I will not engage in any acrimonious debate as to the qualifications of Sir John Teasdale.

The problem that has arisen regarding the quality of wheat or changing fashions in wheat is not of recent origin. It is at least three years since the then Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. McMahon, set up two committees to deal with the wheat problem. One committee was to deal with sales promotion and the other with production. I do not know whether either of those committees has yet submitted a report to the Minister. Certainly no report has been submitted to the Parliament. As Senator Pearson pointed out, if conditions continue as they are at the moment the possibilities are that the Australian taxpayer will be called upon to provide £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 to maintain the wheat industry in the position that it reached following the introduction of wheat stabilization. But when all is said and done, even if it does cost the community such a large sum of money to keep the wheat industry afloat and to guarantee to the wheat producers a fair and reasonable price for their commodity, thus enabling them to enjoy a reasonable standard of living, it will be money well spent. The conditions for the wheatgrowers to-day are quite different from the conditions that existed in the industry before the previous Labour Government placed it on a stable footing. I shall never forget the conditions of those days. Many of the wheat-growers, unable to pay their accounts with the store-keepers who had been maintaining them, had to leave their properties. Mr. McEwen, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, was not then thought as much of by the wheat-growers as Senator Pearson has suggested. Throughout Victoria, gatherings of wheat-growers roundly condemned, not only Mr. McEwen, who was representing the Australian Country Party, but also the party itself - lock, stock and barrel. At that time, the Australian Country Party was condemned as a pawn in the hands of the United Australia Party, as the Liberal Party was then called - the friend of those who exploited the wheat-growers, including the Darlings and the Bells and other middlemen. The usual topic at gatherings of wheat-growers was the price they were likely to receive for their wheat.

Senator McKellar:

– Is that surprising, in view of the agreement that the Labour Government negotiated with New Zealand?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– That was an agreement between the two governments. Neither the wheat-farmers, nor the country as a whole lost as a result of that agreement. Indeed, the supporters of the anti-Labour parties became affluent.

Senator McKellar:

– We lost our income

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It is all very well for Senator McKellar to say that the income of wheat-growers fell. What would their position have been if a stabilization scheme was not introduced? Many of the wheatgrowers would have been forced into the insolvency court. It is quite probable that by now there would have been no wheat industry in this country, because the farmers were marching off their farms. After many wheat-growers had left their farms in the Mallee and other wheat-growing districts in Victoria, their old homesteads, which were left vacant, fell to pieces through lack of maintenance. Yet the honorable senator speaks about lost income! It is admitted that the wheat-growers received lower incomes, but the price of wheat rose overseas; the growers could .have got a higher price for the wheat that was exported. I am sure that, in their hearts, the opponents of Labour know that it was the previous Labour Government that introduced the wheat stabilization plan. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to give credit to this one, that one, and some one else. They should never forget that it was the Labour Government that overcame the desolation that existed in the wheat industry and enabled the wheat-growers to go ahead and attain the position they are in to-day.

Senator Wade:

– Why did not the Labour Government base the scheme it introduced on cost of production?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It has always been the policy of the Australian Labour Party to guarantee to the wheat-growers their cost of production. Of what use would a stabilization scheme be to the wheatgrowers unless it contained that provision? It should never be forgotten that the stability enjoyed by the wheat industry in Australia to-day is due in a large measure to the stabilization scheme that was introduced by the Labour Government. We have watched very closely the progress that has been made in the industry since our scheme was introduced, and we are keenly interested in the demand that is now being made for better quality wheat. We have seen the much boosted Canadian wheat known as Manitoba No. 1 replaced by Manitoba No. 2. I know that the Government did establish two committees to consider the trends in the industry, but unfortunately they have not gone into the matter as fully as they should have done. I think the industry should be the subject of a scientific investigation. Under the present system of recognising an f.a.q. standard, some wheat-growers are not overzealous about the quality of the wheat they grow, and because of the rubbish they are tipping into the silos a grave injustice is being done to the wheat industry as a whole.

Senator Wade:

– By whom?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– This injustice is being done by the careless growers - those who are filling their bags with high-yielding, but poor quality wheat. Of course, all wheat tipped into the silos is subsequently sold. This a matter to which the Government should give attention.

Senator McKellar:

– The honorable senator should know that this matter has been already taken up.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– It should be gone into further by the wheat-growers’ associations. If the individual wheat-growers are disciplined, the industry as a whole will benefit. I am glad that the quarrel that occurred in my State concerning Victoria’s representation on the board undertaking research has been solved, and that the board will now be able to get on with its job. Doubtless, when the results of the research carried out in the various States are made known to the wheat-growers, we shall see an improvement in both the quality and quantity of wheat produced. I hope that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and other scientific organizations will conduct a thorough research into wheat. I am pleased that a sales promotion committee has been established in an endeavour to increase the sale of our wheat overseas. I am pleased, also, that the people in Japan and other Eastern countries are becoming wheateaters; for generations, they have been riceeaters.

Senator Wade:

– If I remember aright, Senator Sheehan opposed the Japanese Trade Agreement!

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I had intimated that the Opposition was quite prepared to support the appointment of an additional representative from Queensland to the Australian Wheat Board, because of the increased production of wheat in that State. I had pointed out, too, that it gave me great pleasure to know that it was due to the efforts of a Federal Labour government that the wheat industry now had a board which was able to guarantee its security. In view of the fact that there is a surplus of approximately 200,000,000 bushels of wheat in this country at present, and that complaints have been made regarding the methods adopted by our American friends and, to a less degree, by the Italian Government, in placing their surplus wheat on the markets of the world, the position of the Australian wheat industry is perhaps somewhat precarious. Be that as it may. The fact is that the debate on this measure has enabled open discussion of wheat stabilization.

During the course of my remarks this afternoon, Senator Wade asked why we did not adopt the cost of production figure. I do not know whether the honorable senator is fully aware of the conditions which brought about the wheat stabilization plan, or whether he is aware of the attitude of the States to stabilization. Those of us who were members of the Parliament during the time that the wheat problem was being discussed so vigorously will remember the difficulty that was experienced by the government of the day in bringing the wheat stabilization plan into existence. Wheat-growers, like most other primary producers, are conservative in their outlook and a little loth to accept new ideas. Eventually, however, economic conditions forced the wheat-growers to seek a stabilized marketing plan for the wheat they produced. I believe, incidentally, that the woolgrowers in the very near future will be forced to do likewise in respect of wool. After a great deal of discussion, it was agreed that the wheat stabilization plan should be adopted.

As is well known, the Commonwealth Parliament has not constitutional power to fix prices, and it was necessary for us to seek the support of the various State governments. The States have agreed to the formula whereby the price of wheat is determined. It is also well known that it is as a result of Commonwealth negotiations with the various wheat-buying countries that the price of wheat for the ensuing season is arrived at. Complementary legislation, of course, has to be passed by the various State Parliaments. In the final analysis, however, it is the Commonwealth that supplies the cash in order that the plan may succeed. If the fears of some honorable senators should be borne out by events, and if conditions governing the sale of wheat overseas deteriorate, it will eventually fall to the Commonwealth to give to the wheat-growers the guaranteed price in order that this very important industry may have stability.

I believe that the Australian Wheat Board has a very big task in front of it. It is true that surplus wheat from other countries is finding its way on to world markets. Countries that import wheat are endeavouring to become exporters; some are already exporters, while others may become exporters in the very near future. It is the duty of all of us to see that everything that can possibly be done is done in order to maintain the position of this great industry which means so much to Australia and its overseas balances.

Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the fact that two committees had been established, in co-operation with the Australian Wheat Board, one to promote sales of wheat and the other to develop the scientific production of wheat. Those committees have the task of seeing what can be done to obtain new markets for our wheat. We have lost a considerable proportion of our markets in the East, simply because the f.a.q. standard of our wheat did not meet the requirements of eastern countries. On the other hand, we know that there is a big demand for f.a.q. wheat, which includes our soft wheat and our hard wheat brought together. We must endeavour to win markets in countries which desire a hard wheat with a greater protein content. Queensland, because of its climatic conditions, is one of the States of Australia in which it is possible to obtain greater yields of wheat. In some parts of Victoria, a very hard wheat can be produced, and perhaps such production could be developed. As a result of the application of science to the growing of wheat, we may be able to produce a greater quantity of hard wheat in Victoria. That also may be possible in New South Wales. As Senator Pearson has mentioned, it is possible to obtain good quality hard wheat in certain areas of South Australia. It is a paradoxical feature of wheat-growing that although certain areas may produce hard wheat one year, because of seasonal conditions or other factors, the following season’s wheat from those areas will not have the same protein content. That is one of the problems that have to be dealt with from the scientific point of view, and one of the matters to which the Australian Wheat Board must apply itself.

Whether the appointment of an additional representative from Queensland will bring added vigour to the board and encourage it to proceed along the lines I have indicated, remains to be seen, but I hope that the appointment will bring about the desired effect. If the appointment does nothing else, it will have provided us with an opportunity to say something in regard to the important wheat industry. I hope, Mr. Deputy President, that as a result of the settlement of the dispute in my own State, the Wheat Research Committee will operate efficiently and effectively in regard to the wheat-marketing problem. Notwithstanding the fears that are held by many people to-day about the future of our wheat industry, I believe that we should proceed with the development of the industry in no uncertain manner.

Now that this scheme has been in existence for some eleven years, I regret that there are many among our wheat-growers, and those who purport to represent them, who are unmindful of the great struggle that took place to stabilize this industry.

After the first world war, the wheat industry entered a new era. During the war, it had enjoyed some prosperity because the government of the day was able to sell a certain quantity of Australian wheat to the United Kingdom at a fixed price. That gave it some measure of stability. But immediately the government of the day, led by Mr. W. M. Hughes, released its control of the industry and our wheat had to take its chance in the world of commerce, the wheatgrowers found there was no ready demand for their product. They were in the hands of a wheat combine. Agents went to the farms and offered the wheat-growers a miserable pittance for their wheat until they began to walk off their farms. If those conditions had continued and the wheat stabilization scheme had not been introduced, possibly the industry would not exist to-day.

I regret that there are some who forget that struggle and are loth to give the credit that is due to the Labour Governments led by John Curtin and later by J. B. Chifley. Not only had the Labour government to convince the majority of the members of this Parliament; it also had to convince the majority of the State governments and not all of them were interested in wheatgrowing. Then we had to convince the wheatgrowers themselves that they should accept stabilization.

It was a great struggle, and I am incensed when I hear the cheap jibes that are hurled at the Labour administration because it disposed of a few bushels of wheat to our sister dominion of New Zealand. In all good faith, the Minister for Commerce of the day made an offer to sell wheat to New Zealand in return for other commodities. When there was an unexpected rise in the wheat market after New Zealand had accepted the offer, we heard these cheap jibes from many persons who ought to go down on their knees and be thankful that Australia had a government then which was game to introduce legislation that saved them from destruction.

Time after time we hear the jibe, “ What about New Zealand? “ I am prepared to go into any of the wheat-growing electorates with the parliamentary representatives of those areas and support the claim that a Labour government was responsible for this stabilizing legislation. I am prepared to remind the farmers who might not have known those conditions that there was, at one time, a crisis in the wheat industry, and that prices were not always as good as they are now. I am prepared to tell them what this Australian Labour Party did to stabilize the wheat industry. We as a movement and as a party hold that there are two sections of the community who are exploited by the middleman. They are the primary producers and the workers on the job. As a matter of fact, those are the only two sections of the people who have very little say in determining the price at which they will sell the product of their labour, although the worker now has his industrial awards and the wheat-growers have a stabilization scheme which enables them to maintain a certain standard.

I do not know what those who will follow me in this debate will say in supporting the bill, but I am prepared to defend in any place the assertion I have made - that it was the Australian Labour Party and the Labour Party alone that saved Australia’s wheat industry. I remember when the wheatgrowers attended mass meetings and called the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party everything they could think of. I remember when a former Minister for Commerce said to the wheat-growers, “ You are a lot of mendicants asking for a government hand-out “. The Opposition supports this bill because we believe it is in the best interests of the industry. I am sure the Australian Labour Party will never be found wanting in its fight to stabilize the prices of primary products.

Senator MCKELLAR:
New South Wales

– I have pleasure in supporting the bill which provides for the appointment of a second wheat-growers’ representative from Queensland to the Australian Wheat Board. In so doing, I think it is only fair to pay tribute to the work that has been performed by past members of the board. We should all realize that although the Wheat Board is constituted under a federal act, it receives its authorization to market wheat grown in each State direct from the relevant State Parliament. As a result, silo authorities in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia all operate under authority granted by the respective States.

For some years past, New South Wales has had the advantage of having Messrs. E. G. Hoy and J. P. Cass as the New South Wales representatives on the Wheat Board. Mr. Cass is a past president of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales. Mr. Hoy is currently the president of that organization. Anybody who knows those two gentlemen realizes that it is ludicrous to think that they would be backward in presenting the case of the wheat-growers or that they would buckle under to any one individual on the Wheat Board.

We have heard a lot about the segregation of wheat, but it is not as easy as it seems. No doubt it is most desirable, but we have to be practical. The question of segregating wheat in New South Wales, at any rate, has been exercising the minds of wheat-growers and their representatives for the past ten years to my certain knowledge. One of the difficulties confronting us in most States - it might not apply so much in South Australia - is the fact that, under the bulkhandling system, we have not sufficient storage accommodation to permit of the segregation of wheat into hard and soft varieties. Had we sufficient accommodation, or if we were receiving our wheat wholly in bags as we did ten or fifteen years ago, it would be very much simpler. So it is not as easy as it seems, in spite of the desirability of having such a scheme.

Some may ask why more hard wheat with a higher gluten content is not grown. First, as has been mentioned to-day, hard wheats with a high gluten content can be grown only in certain areas. I notice that some honorable senators do not agree with me, but I assure them that that is a fact. One may sow seed in certain areas and find that the gluten content of the wheat will not be as high as the same variety will produce in other areas. Hard wheat is produced in drier and hotter areas, and wetter, colder areas invariably produce softer wheat. The climatic conditions are an important factor. Even in drier areas that have stronger types of soil, on occasions weather conditions will lower the gluten content of wheat to a very great degree. There is also the factor of the grower himself, who wishes to grow wheat that will give htm the best financial return, lt is obvious that if he can grow a hard variety of wheat which will give him a good yield and for which he can claim a premium of up to 7s. 6d,, he will grow it I have known of such a high premium being paid hi the north-west of New South Wales.

Senator Pearson:

– From where does he get the premium?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– Over the last two or three years, the Australian Wheat Board has been handling that matter and making arrangements with wheat buyers. Prior to that, private arrangements used to be made. People would come to inspect the wheat and the premium would be decided on by the buyer and seller. Premiums did rise as high as 7s. 6d. Perhaps they were even higher; I do not know.

Senator Scott:

– Do you get as high a price for wheat sold overseas?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– Yes, as high a price is obtained overseas. We must remember that not all overseas countries require hard wheats. Japan requires quite a quantity of soft wheat. Here in Australia we do not want all hard wheat. As most of us know, even in country areas to-day a mixture of wheat is needed. In my own district only a few years ago the local mill was turning away hard wheat because it had too much of it and wanted softer wheats to mix with the hard wheat in order to obtain the type of flour it required.

In New South Wales over the past ten years we have seen a very great movement in the wheat-growing areas. Only ten or fifteen years ago the Riverina was the great granary of New South Wales. To-day, that is not so. Most of our wheat to-day comes from the north-west. It is grown on country with a very heavy type of soil requiring little or no superphosphate. This has been quite a good thing for the State. The movement of wheat-growing from the Riverina to the north-west has enabled pasture improvement to be carried out in the Riverina in paddocks formerly sown with wheat. This has resulted in a great improvement in the stock-carrying capacity, as well as giving the soil some respite from the continual drain to which it had been subject over the years of wheat-growing. That has been of quite considerable benefit to the area.

I return to the gluten content of wheat. Bakers say, “ We cannot give you a decent loaf of bread unless we get wheat with a high gluten content “. I think that in many cases that is only an excuse. Some of the best bread I have eaten came from areas which did not grow wheat with a high gluten content. Conversely, some of the poorest bread 1 have eaten came from areas where wheat with a high gluten content could be obtained. I do not think there is as much to be said for the bakers’ argument as they would like us to think. Earlier, I mentioned different types of wheat. We must remember that the farmer must grow a variety that is suited to his soil. Having decided on a variety, he must determine, if he is in a drought area, whether that variety will stand up to droughts. He must determine also whether it is rust resistant. That is a most important factor to-day. Unfortunately, we find that there is a continual lowering of the rustresistant qualities of wheat. We get hold of a variety that is rust resistant for a period, but then it seems to lose its capacity to resist, the rust takes toll, and the variety has to be discarded. We may get wheat that is quite suitable in other respects but has a weak stalk. Unless it is harvested promptly, the straw snaps, it goes down and it is then impossible to harvest. Other varieties are good yielders but unless they are harvested within a few days of ripening the wheat falls to the ground and much of the yield is lost. Those are all factors that the farmer must consider.

Mention has been made of the equalization fund. If my memory serves me correctly, after the fund had been operating for twelve months or so, a ceiling of £20,000,000 was fixed. It was decided that that would be a fair thing. Let us not forget that this equalization fund was built up from contributions made by farmers from their receipts from wheat. It was their money that was earning the interest upon which Senator Benn commented earlier. Now that fund has been reduced to about £10,000,000 and it may be even lower. Although Senator Sheehan seemed to deprecate the statement that Australian wheat-growers had contributed greatly to Australian consumers by providing wheat for home consumption at a much lower figure than that which could be obtained overseas, the value of that concession was, as stated by Senator Pearson, about £200,000,000. It was stated that we would have been broke without the stabilization fund. That is not so. The overseas price of wheat would have been available to us and there would not have been any question of going broke. 1 can assure honorable senators that in those circumstances the farmers would have received far more than they did receive. Now the pendulum is swinging the other way and the overseas price is coming nearer to the home consumption price. It seems as if in the very near future, when the equalization fund is exhausted, it will have to be subsidized either by the Government or by the consumer. That fact should be borne in mind by the consumer, who had much cheaper bread than he was entitled to over the last ten years.

One factor that was exercising the minds of New South Wales growers during the last harvest was that payments made to them by the board were greatly delayed. This was brought about by the adoption of a new system of accounting and was no fault of the board, lt was just something that was tried and apparently found wanting. I think it was only this week that I read the statement that it had been decided to use once again the old method of accounting. That will be to the satisfaction of most of the growers. One of the big cost factors in wheat-growing is the freight on the wheat. First of all the wheat has to be transported from the farm either in the farmer’s own lorry or truck or else by contractors. Having reached the railhead it is usually taken to a port. The cost of transporting wheat from the central western district - my own area - to the seaboard is within a fraction of 2s. a bushel. That comes off the first payment.

I learned only last week that as a result of further increase in freights that we suffered recently in New South Wales, a flour mill at Cowra employing twenty people, and another one at Millthorpe employing twenty people, are closing. They give as their reason for closing the big increase in freight. I understand that another mill in that area looks like closing also. There are something like 50,000 wheat-growers in Australia. As I mentioned only the week before last they work hard all the year round and put up with far more discomfort than do most city people - even those living on award wages. I think the wheatgrowers are entitled to a little more than those who work a 40-hour week and enjoy all the amenities of city life. We would do well to keep those facts in mind.

A good deal of criticism has been levelled against Sir John Teasdale. I do not know the man. Others have paid tribute to the work he has performed in the past. I think that it is somewhat of a poor compliment to the other members of the Australian Wheat Board to blame Sir John Teasdale for alleged shortcomings of the board in connexion with segregation. Surely the man is not so powerful that he is able to sway the rest of the board. Knowing the two New South Wales members, I cannot entertain that idea for one moment.

Senator Wade:

– The same applies to the Victorian members.

Senator McKELLAR:

Senator Wade says that the same applies to the Victorian members. Anyone knowing the two representatives from New South Wales would agree that if the chairman could persuade those men to do anything they did not want to do, he must be very good indeed.

Quite a lot of criticism has been levelled against the Australian Country Party. To those of us in New South Wales that is nothing new; we are quite used to it. We have been told time and time again that we are on the way out, that we are decadent and there is no future for us. We are still here, and we have increased our numbers in the State. We are still the best friend of the primary producer; there is no question about that. Senator Sheehan knows that but he will not admit it. He went to great pains to tell us that the stabilization scheme was brought in by a Labour government. That may be true, but it is equally true that the national health scheme was brought in by a Labour government. But did it work? We all know that it did not work. The present stabilization scheme is so far removed from the scheme brought in by the Labour Government, from the point of view of providing satisfaction to the farmers, that there is as much difference between the two schemes as there is between chalk and cheese. We know that when the scheme was first brought in great difficulty was experienced in getting New South Wales to come into it. I think Senator Sheehan will remember that. New South Wales had a government which had very little sympathy for the wheatgrowers, and it is pretty obvious that the present Government in that State has very little more sympathy. I think I have touched sufficiently on the criticism that has been offered because this criticism of the Country Party falls off us like water off a duck’s back.

Senator Sheehan mentioned rubbish in wheat. I do not know whether we in New South Wales are alone in this - I would be surprised if we were - but over the last two seasons, at any rate, a very strict supervision has taken place of wheat being unloaded at silos. The wheat has to run through meshes. If it contained much rubbish it would not run through the mesh and consequently would be rejected. I think the rubbish content allowed in the wheat is something like 2 per cent. It may be a little more, but I think it is 2 per cent. With respect to New South Wales, at any rate, the criticism that has been levelled on the score of rubbish content does not apply now.

We were told also about the action of wheat buyers in the past. In common with many others, I suppose, I sold wheat to buyers in the country at as low as ls. 3d. a bushel on one occasion. I have very vivid recollections of that. However, I cannot remember that any large fortunes were made by these buyers. They were speculators and operated as speculators do in connexion with other commodities. If the market went with them they made money, but if it went against them they lost. I do not think they are the rogues they have been made out to be. I would not call them rogues and I would not agree with the allegation that they more or less flogged the unfortunate growers. They may have done so but I do not think it was to their advantage in the long run.

To complete my remarks, I want to pay a very strong tribute to the Minister for Trade, Mr. John McEwen. I agree with other honorable senators who have paid a tribute to him that he has provided us with new markets. A suggestion was made, I think during the course of this debate, that committees should be set up to try to find new markets, but it is only a few months since a delegation went overseas with that object in view. It was successful. That sort of thing is continually going on and we are told to-day that our problem is not so much that of finding new markets. Our main problem is to find governments which will allow us to send our wheat into their countries.

I agree with all that has been said about the difficulties that have been experienced by the wheat-growers of the United States where there are huge surpluses of wheat. The United States has been financially embarrassed by those huge surpluses and has paid its farmers to keep their land out of production. Do not let us forget, however, that some years ago we paid our farmers so much per acre provided that they did not sow their land. Let us hope that that state of affairs does not rise again. Mr. McEwen has certainly done a very good job for the wheat-growers of Australia as well as for other primary producers, and I am quite sure he will continue to do so. I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Senator TANGNEY (Western Australia) 18.39]. - I did not really intend to enter this debate, and have done so only because of certain remarks that were made this afternoon and this evening about the Labour Party’s attitude to primary producers in general and the wheat-growers in particular. I come from a State which is very advanced in respect of wheat production. We pioneered orderly marketing and we also pioneered farmers’ co-operatives with our Westralian Farmers group which has done a marvellous job in the bulk handling and marketing of wheat.

Quite recently I was down in one of the marginal wheat-growing areas just after a fierce hail storm had occurred, and it was very distressing to me to see the farmers bringing their wheat to the railway siding. Some of the wheat had been affected by smut. One day when I was at Salmon Gums 24 farmers’ trucks were waiting in a queue for the wheat to be taken, inspected, graded and so on. They had to wait because of the shortage of storage accommodation and it meant that a great deal of time and money was being lost by these farmers. When I came back there a few days later it seemed to me that some of them had not moved in the interim because they appeared to be in just the same place as they were in three or four days before. They had managed to get out to their farms and bring back another load df wheat, but they were confronted with extreme difficulty in having it taken off their hands.

Senator Hannaford:

– They were not following very sound farming practices.

Senator TANGNEY:

– The whole difficulty was due to climatic conditions at the time.

Senator Wade:

– But it just does not happen that way.

Senator TANGNEY:

– The fact is that the rain had spoilt the wheat in some way. If there had been an extra silo available, it would have helped considerably with the grading of the wheat and the farmers would have been able to get back to their other jobs much more quickly. When I took the matter up with the bulk handling authorities on my return to Perth, I was told that nothing could be done this season, but that every effort would be made to expedite the provision of extra storage facilities in the south-eastern district next season.

I should like to see. some decentralization in the handling of wheat. For instance, I suggest that it would be of very great benefit to the farmers in the district if bulk handling facilities were installed at Esperance. This would also help greatly in the development of Esperance as a port in that by shipping direct from there, hundreds of miles of rail transport would be saved. Although no charge is made for the extra distance transported by rail, this traffic does impose a great strain on the rolling stock of the State railways. Further, there would be a much quicker turnover of wheat supplies if the export port were at places such as Esperance rather than at Fremantle, which is hundreds of miles further away.

The Australian Labour Party has always advocated the stabilization of the wheat industry. We want to see all primary producers enjoying a fair and equitable return for their products. They earn every penny they receive, and I never grudge primary producers or miners one penny of the income they enjoy. They are two classes of workers who take very great risks, one section taking personal risks and the other financial risks; They also suffer great hardship and do not enjoy the amenities that we city residents take as a matter of course. Anything that we can do to give them stability of income should be done.-

The farmers themselves have always aimed at stabilization”, bat the Members of the Australian Country Pa”rty have riot favoured it. If is all Very well, at this :stage, when & stabilized marketing scheme has been in operation for years, for members of the Australian ‘Country Party in the Senate and elsewhere to ‘claim credit for (laving introduced the scheme. The fact is that for ‘the last 30 years the Australian Country Party has been averse to a wheat stabilization scheme. I do riot ask honor.able senators ;to take my word for that. To support my assertion, 1 quote the following extract from a Victorian Liberal journal, “‘Ouyen and North Western Express”, Of 7th February, 1945-

Desperate efforts are being made by members of the Country Party to discredit the whole stabilization scheme and, with it, orderly marketing without which the wheat-grower is doomed. The game is on again, and God help, the grower if he takes notice of the . propaganda being poured “out by those ‘men who, . in the past, have sold the ‘industry again and again.

Mr. T. W. Lithe, president of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation of Victoria, had this to say-

Mr. McEwen was first at one extreme ; now he is at another. His gratuitous insults to wheatgrowers who refuse to follow him but instead have maintained a. steadfast policy are a piece of collossal impertinence.

Further, “the Wheat and Wool Growers Union; at a meeting held in Perth on 22nd August, 1939, carried this resolution -

That a letter ‘of protest be, sent by this con.ference to the Prime Minister registering our extreme disgust at his failure to stabilize the price of wheat.

That we deplore the apathy and Jack of initiative displayed by the federal Country Party, and that a telegram be sent to Sir Earle Page explaining this and our disgust that the federal Country f arty has failed to see justice done to the wheatgrowers of Australia.

Two years later, iri the “ Wheat-grower “, of 22hd November, 1941, the following article was published: -

What traitors these federal Country Party representatives have proved themselves to the people they claim to , represent. Numerous representations to the U.A.P.-C.P. Government has proved the futility of making^ representations to a party whose aims and objects were and are completely at variance with the aims of primary producers:

Following that, a man who, was very much respected by all members of both Houses of this Parliament and throughout Australia for his forthrightness, a former Speaker pf the House of Representatives, and who’ was’ the only member of the Liberal-Country

Party returned to this Parliament from South Australia at the 1943 elections, said - lt was because we went to the “country without a wheat policy that we are now in opposition. When the responsibility rested upon us to do what ought, to be done for the wheat-grower, we did not accept it.

Senator Brown:

– Who was that?

Senator TANGNEY:

– The late Archie Cameron. I mention these things to illustrate that throughout the years the Labour Party has supported the stabilization of the wheat industry. We had to fight very hard to get it. At the beginning of World War II., the wheat-growing industry was in a very parlous position. In 1939, the. State president of the Victorian Country Party, Mr. Simpson, declared that 80 per cent, of the Victorian wheat-growers were bankrupt. I emphasize that this was said not .by. a member of the Labour Party, . but by Mr. Simpson, who is president of. the Victorian Country Party to-day. But between 1939 and 1948, the indebtedness of the farmers of Australia was written down by 17 per cent. During those ten years, they were able to write off ?80,000,000 worth of debts. In a time of war, that means a great deal. Iri Western Australia we had become accustomed to seeing farmers walking oft their properties. Those who stayed on had to fight against poverty and near starvation when the price of wheat dropped to about ls. 7d. a bushel.

We did not want to see those things occurring again and, gradually over the years, a policy of stabilization came to be accepted by all political parties. Everybody has come to appreciate that stabilization of the wheat industry is essential to the farmers and to. the whole of the community because, if the farmer has no stability of income, all trade and industry with which he comes in contact must also suffer. I repeat that all sections of the community have come to realize that if the farmers are not getting a fair deal, if they are not getting a fair return for their products, all other sections of the community suffer for it.

About three years ago, the Australian Agricultural Council set up two committees to inquire into various aspects of the wheat industry in Australia. Ohe of those committees inquired info costs in the industry and the other investigated the marketing of Australian wheat overseas. Although three years have gone by, no report has yet been made available to this Parliament. I understood that such a report would be made to the Australian Agricultural Council, which consists of the State Ministers for Agriculture plus the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry. Those committees were set up three years ago and surely they are not so slow in their workings that they have not been able to submit a report that can be made available to the public or at least to the farmers in order to acquaint them with the difficulties confronting their industry and ways of combating them.

Mention has been made of the various flour mills that are closing down in Australia. I know that some have closed down in my own State. I was amazed to hear a particular item on the 7 o’clock news to-night over the Australian Broadcasting Commission station. That news item brings things right up to date and explains quite a good deal of what lies behind the closing down of so many Australian flour mills. It stated -

Japanese exporters are taking advantage of lower milling costs and freight rates to undersell Australian flour in a number of Australia’s traditional markets in South-East Asia.

The A.B.C.’s South-East Asian representative says that as a result of favourable charter rates for bulk cargoes from Australia Japanese millers are able to buy Australian wheat and after milling it ship flour to Thailand, Malaya and Singapore nt a price well below that of flour milled and shipped direct from Australia.

In addition to favourable charter rates for bulk carriage of grain to Japan, intense competition on shipping lines plying between Japan and SouthEast Asian ports gives Japanese exports a further big advantage.

The A.B.C.’s representative says that the first Japanese breakthrough has come in the Thailand market.

This is the part that I should like honorable senators to listen to carefully -

Japanese flour in calico bags marked with the words “ Milled from finest Australian wheat “ but with no indication of where it was milled is being freely offered for sale.

He understands that the Australian Trade Commissioners in Thailand and Singapore have reported fully to the Australian Department of Trade on the situation.

I submit that the practice of putting Japanese flour in calico bags, marking them with the words “ Milled from the finest Australian wheat “ and giving no indication of the fact that the flour has been milled in Japan could easily give rise to the belief that it has been milled in Australia.

Whether the product is inferior to Australian flour I do not know, but it should be compulsory for any country exporting a product of this nature to state the place of origin of the actual product, not merely the place of origin of the raw material. We are losing our flour markets in the East by what 1 should say are very unorthodox - to be quite charitable - trade practices indulged in by our competitors. The Minister for Trade should look into this matter immediately to see whether this practice contravenes any of the provisions of the trade agreement entered into between Australia and Japan.

For many years Western Australia has had the services of an excellent officer in the Department of Agriculture. I refer to Dr. Sutton, whose work and research in the wheat industry are known not only throughout Australia but throughout the British Commonwealth. He has given a lifetime of service to the primary industries of this country and has rendered valuable assistance to the Australian Wheat Board in its deliberations over the years.

I do not want to enter into the controversy over the chairman of the board. I was distressed last week at some of the remarks passed by members of the Government parties in another place with regard to Sir John Teasdale. I remember Sir John first when he was a rival of mine in an election for the Senate. Later he was appointed to the Australian Wheat Board. It is rather incongruous that this afternoon the Senate debated for about an hour a bill to extend for one year the term of office of a public servant who held a very important position for which he had special training and skills, and later the same day honorable senators opposite passed uncomplimentary remarks about the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, who was appointed to his position originally at an age much in advance of the age of the present Commissioner of Taxation. The situation is too silly for words.

This bill seeks to increase the membership of the Australian Wheat Board by appointing an additional representative from Queensland. The Labour Party agrees with that proposal because although Queensland is not one of our large wheat-producing States, it does produce a very fine wheat. We on this side of the chamber are pleased that Queensland is to have this additional representative on the board and we support the bill. During the debate several honorable senators have ranged far and wide and have not confined their remarks to the bill. That is why I have been encouraged to take certain liberties and speak on certain aspects of the wheat industry that are not directly associated with the bill.

We on this side of the Senate are pleased that the Australian Wheat Board is to have this additional member because it has a big job to do in finding markets for our wheat, particularly when the farmers and the flour-millers are up against the nefarious trade practices that I have mentioned. We must be on the alert to find new markets and to see that we do not fall into traps. We produce a high-quality wheat in this country. I do not know as much about the ramifications of the market as my friends on the other side of the chamber who are primary producers, but I know that we cannot hope to hold our markets or obtain new markets for our wheat unless we export nothing but the best. No country wants to receive secondbest quality and it behoves the farmers to see that the product they export is of the finest quality.

I am pleased to support the bill and I hope that my friends of the Australian Country Party in this chamber do not take my remarks as being personal, because none of them was here at the time to which I was referring. As a matter of fact, when the country people had their chance to express at the polls what they thought of their representatives at that time they turned them out lock, stock and barrel. Only two Australian Country Party members who were in Parliament at that time are left in the House of Representatives and the only senator who was here then is Senator Sir Walter Cooper, and he would not do any harm to anybody.

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

– 1 support the bill. It is good that Queensland is to have an additional representative on the Australian Wheat Board. In fact, one may say that Queensland is only getting an additional half-representative, because Queensland has always had a second parttime representative on the board. He will now become a permanent member of the board. Queensland deserves full representation on the board because it has greatly increased its wheat production. Queensland is a great producer of hard wheat and 1 am of the belief that this is the wheat of the future. I trust that this move on Queensland’s behalf will be a successful one.

I want to say one or two things to-night, particularly with regard to my own State - Tasmania. We in Tasmania are not very great wheat producers. We produce a mere 164,000 bushels a year - practically nothing. But last year our average yield was 25.4 bushels to the acre.

Senator Wade:

– It was noi worth stripping.

Senator HENTY:

– It was worth stripping. I shall tell you why. We have developed a very valuable market for the flour that is made from Tasmanian wheat. We produce quality wheat, and the flour that is made from it is the best biscuit flour produced in Australia. It has a moisture content that ma’kes it the most suitable flour for the production of biscuits. For years, we have sent our flour mostly to New South Wales, in the main for the biscuit trade. This is a small but lucrative market, based upon quality. I join with those who to-night have said that much will depend upon the quality of the wheat we produce in the future.

Recently, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) visited Tasmania. I was most impressed by a statement that he repeatedly made during that visit to the effect that our future prosperity would depend on our production of quality products. Quality products are those that bring repeat business, and it is steady repeat business that establishes goodwill, and builds the trade of a State or a country. At the moment, we are entering into very highly competitive markets overseas. The quality of our wheat and our flour will play a tremendous part not only in keeping, but also in developing those markets.

I do not, for a moment, pose as an expert on wheat or the growing of wheat, but I do know something about marketing, and I say this: The old system that we have had in Australia for many years of mixing all our wheat - both good and bad - in a shandygaff called f.a.q. belongs to the days of the past. One of my colleagues said recently that it was most difficult to segregate wheat in Australia. It may be difficult to do so, but other countries do it, and what other countries can do we in Australia can do; in my opinion, we can do it better. If other countries can sell wheat by analysis - on the basis of a sample previously supplied - we in Australia can do it, and we must do it.

Sir, when I was in the East a year or two ago, I was very impressed with the activities of a team of bakers who had been sent there from Canada and who were giving practical demonstrations to the local bakers in order to show that more loaves of bread could be produced from a bag of Manitoba hard wheat flour than from other flour. This wheat has a high moisture absorption rate, and consequently it produces more loaves to the bag than does other flour. In consequence of these demonstrations, the Canadians were selling flour in a market that we were losing. Furthermore, they were obtaining higher prices for their flour than the price at which our flour was being offered on that market. That was attributable to the fact that the team of bakers demonstrated to the men who were going to use the flour that the Manitoba flour would give them extra value. That, Sir, is what we have to do. In northern New South Wales and in Queensland there is being grown in increasing quantities premium wheat with which, by segregation and placing on overseas markets at a competitive price - based on sample or analysis - we can not only retain, but also develop those markets.

Senator Wade:

– What percentage of the total crop is represented by premium wheat?

Senator HENTY:

– Only a small percentage, but I have always been a solid supporter of the contention that it is best to foster a market by starting in a small way and allowing it to build up by goodwill. We want markets for all of our products, and we can get them. You do not need a flash campaign having as its objective the selling of a tremendous quantity of any commodity. It is better to start in a small way and concentrate on quality. We will always be able to hold markets that are developed in that way. I admit that, at the moment, premium wheat alone would not represent a big percentage of the market.

Senator Hannaford:

– You could never grow a big percentage of it at a profit.

Senator HENTY:

– I am not going to suggest that I know the answer to that assertion, senator, as I have no knowledge of growing wheat, but I do know that there has been a steady increase in the production of wheat in those areas that are suitable for the growing of hard wheat, anc that a great deal of it is in fact good, hard wheat. I think that, by encouraging the production of hard wheat in areas close to the coast, and by shipping to countries north of Australia flour made from this wheat, we could recapture our markets there.

I wish now to mention one of the problems that we are up against in Tasmania. I concede, readily, that wheat is supplied to us for the manufacture of bread at the standard price that applies throughout Australia. To do that, a levy in the region of 2d. a bushel is imposed on wheat for home consumption, from which the Australian Wheat Board pays the freight to Tasmania. This is of considerable assistance to us. However, the board has no right to send to us wheat of the lowest quality for manufacturing purposes. Indeed, a recent shipment of wheat to Tasmania contained weevils. I think that we should be able to buy our wheat from the board at a certain price on the basis of a sample previously supplied, and if when the wheat is delivered it is found to be not up to the quality of the sample we should be able to reject it. The Tasmanian market is being exploited by the Wheat Board through the poor quality of the wheat that it has sent to Tasmania over the last few months. In fact, the wheat that was sent to Tasmania on one occasion was of such poor quality that one of the mills was given permission to buy good, hard wheat in bags and bring it to Tasmania to mix with the wheat in the silos because that wheat was unusable for the manufacture of flour. I think that this position should be watched very carefully. There is an urgent need to streamline the working of the Australian Wheat Board. I have heard an Opposition senator say that big, centralized bodies get out of touch; I agree with that. They are prone to get out of touch with the position in outlying areas of Australia. 1 come now to another aspect of the matter. I have received many complaints from wheat-growers in Tasmania who have to send their crops to Hobart or Launceston by rail, that if other farmers want stock feed for themselves they have to buy it and rail it back to their farms. That is bad administration. In the first place they pay the rail freight on wheat sent from their farms to the silos, and then, if they want wheat for stock feed others have to pay rail freight on it again from the silos to the farm.

Senator Wade:

– Oh!

Senator HENTY:

– That is so. I am quoting a report that was given to me, which I believe to be correct. There is another thing that I want to mention. New silos have been built on the north-west coast of Tasmania, at Devonport, to service a very modern flour mill that has been built there. Merchants at all of the ports on the north-west coast have been purchasing bagged flour from Melbourne at 15s. a bushel, plus 9d. a bushel for bagging, freight paid to the Tasmanian port. We now have silos at Devonport, where the wheat is delivered in bulk. It might be expected that the wheat would now be cheaper, or at least as cheap as it was before. However, the position is that, although wheat can still be bought at all the ports along the coast, bagged wheat at the silos costs 16s. lid. a bushel, compared with the price of 15s. 9d. a bushel from Melbourne. The price of 16s. lid. is made up of the initial cost of 15s., plus 6d. for silo charges, 7d. for bagging and lOd. for the cost of bags. The total cost of 16s. 1 1 d. a bushel compares unfavourably with the price of 15s. 9d. a bushel which obtains twelve miles further along the coast where it is brought in from Melbourne. That is a matter which needs investigation, because T think that it is not in the best interests of the wheat trade in Tasmania.

The bread manufacturing trade was given an undertaking that when the silos were erected, millers would be able to buy wheat from the silos according to analysis. The wheat in the three silos would be tested, and millers could withdraw from the silos the amount of wheat that they required of each quality. The idea was that the bread trade would be able to get from the mills a standard quality flour. After all, that is what they want. The flour does not have to be of such a very high quality, but it has to be of a standard quality. Anybody who knows the baking trade appreciates that in order to produce bread of a standard quality it is necessary to have flour of a standard quality. We have never yet been able to draw from separate bins in the silos, or to obtain an analysis of the wheat in those silos. We have never had, in accordance with the undertaking that was given previously, a standard wheat which, on analysis, would produce a standard flour, thus enabling the baker to know what he was getting and to know how to work it.

During the course of the debate I heard an honorable senator, I think on this side of the chamber, say that good bread had been produced from wheat with a low gluten content and that good bread has also been produced from wheat with a high gluten content. The bulk of our flour and bread is consumed in the cities, where there is day baking. Within the hours during which baking is permitted in day bakeries in the cities, it is impossible to go through the processes which result in good bread. There is insufficient time to allow for the rising of the yeast, knocking it back, and waiting for it to rise again. Those are the things that the skilled bakers of the past knew about, and those are the things which the bakers are unable to do in this modern age of stipulated baking hours. Because those processes cannot now be adopted, it is more imperative than ever that flour with a high gluten and protein content should1 be available to the baking trade. If the members of a particular trade want an article of certain quality, it is up to those who produce the article to see to it that the quality is of the desired standard. There should be a premium for production of the article of the required standard, and if wheat-growers produce the kind of wheat that the baking trade requires they should be paid a premium price for that wheat. In that way, the men who produce the wheat would receive a fair and proper deal. I wanted to bring those matters to the notice of the Senate.

Senator Vincent:

– Why not bring them to the notice of the Government?

Senator HENTY:

– Quite so. I want to bring them to the notice of both the Senate and the Government.

Senator Robertson:

– Western Australia has the best bread in Australia. It is made from flour produced from hard wheat and soft wheat, mixed.

Senator HENTY:

– That may be true. Of course, the Western Australian people no doubt have become used to their own chow. However, I do not doubt for a moment that Western Australia produces good bread. As long as the bakers are given flour of a standard quality, whether it comes from wheat with a low gluten content, from wheat with a high gluten content, or from a mixture of wheats, they will know how to work it, but they cannot do justice to their craft if they find that in one week the wheat is of a certain quality and that it is of another quality the following week. Make no mistake about it, breadmaking is a craft. I have no doubt that if Western Australia has excellent bread it is because the bakers have wheat of a standard quality to work with.

I did not enter this debate as an expert on the growing of wheat, although I did so with some knowledge of sales promotion and marketing. I close, as I started, by saying that there is no substitute for quality. I do not think that we in Tasmania deserve wheat of the quality that we have been getting from the Wheat Board.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– I had not intended to take part in this debate concerning a simple measure, about which the whole Senate is in agreement, which seeks to provide for the appointment of an additional representative from Queensland to the Australian Wheat Board in order that it may function more satisfactorily. The debate has developed in a very interesting way. Unexpectedly, it has ranged over the general development of the wheat industry, and I have been interested in much that has been said. The need for increased production of wheat, improvement of varieties, and better organized marketing methods, to which previous speakers have referred, is one aspect of the problem that the wheat industry faces. I think that scientific experimentation and investigation will play an important part in the future of the industry. There is a great possibility that wheat varieties will be improved. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization recently established a large laboratory in Brisbane.

I understand that experiments will be conducted there, not so much with wheat as with meat, pastures, and so on. Australian primary industries are now having scientific investigations focussed on them, perhaps for the first time. I think that is all to the good.

When I first went into the sugar industry, Australian sugar-cane was of the lowest quality in the world. To-day, it is the highest. We have the sweetest cane in the world and the most efficient sugar industry. That has been brought about by means of experimentation. Experimental plots have been set aside and experiment stations distributed throughout sugar-growing areas. Great attention has been paid over the years to the scientific aspects of the production of sugar.

Senator Wright:

– The sugar industry does not share much of its sweetness with the fruit industry.

Senator COURTICE:

– I suggest to the honorable senator that good fruit does not need much sugar. More than a quarter of a century ago, the Queensland sugar industry selected three young men from the Queensland University. One was a pathologist, one an agricultural chemist, and the third an engineer. They spent five years in the sugar-producing countries of the world, after which they returned to Australia. Today, they are probably the most outstanding scientists in the world so far as sugar production is concerned. At important international conferences that have been held in Queensland, our own scientists in the sugar industry have shown themselves equal to the best scientists in the world.

I am a little concerned about the marketing of wheat at the present time. If the standards of living of the Australian people generally are to remain high, conditions in the primary industries must be good. The Labour Party has always appreciated that fact. That is why it has always been in the vanguard in advocating stable or organized marketing arrangements. We were the first to produce that system. The Queensland Government was the first in the world to initiate organized marketing of primary products and it was a Labour government.

However, it is strange that immediately Labour brings the farmer out of the doldrums and puts him in a decent position, he becomes the slavish supporter of those whom we have had to fight. That is the position in this Parliament. Members of the Australian Country Party are simply the slavish supporters of this Government. When Senator Lillico of Tasmania entered this chamber I thought his first speech was excellent. 1 said to myself, “ This is good; he will make an impression on this Parliament “. I had similar thoughts about Senator Drake-Brockman and other honorable senators. But where are they to-day? The speeches they made in supporting the motion for the adoption for the AddressinRepIy were expressions of slavish support for this Government. They have forgotten what they said in their maiden speeches in this chamber. I have seen that happen throughout my whole political career to members of the Australian Country Party.

Senator Wright:

– That comes very well from you when you humble yourself to caucus on every vote.

Senator COURTICE:

– I would not have introduced this matter if other honorable senators had not disputed the truth of the statement that the Labour Party’s policy is to stabilize the conditions of the man on the land because we realize how import ant primary production is to every citizen in the community. One honorable senator in his first speech pointed out that the income of primary producers had been reduced because of the inflationary policy of the Government, and Senator Wright applauded him.

Senator Wright:

– No. The reason was the high increase in wages paid to workers in secondary industries.

Senator COURTICE:

– Only the other day, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), in opening a conference in Brisbane, said that the best market for primary producers was that provided by those who work in and around the factories of Australia; but T can remember the time when the Australian Country Party opposed the establishment of manufacturing industries in Australia. We know what conditions were at that time. I say definitely that unless those engaged in primary industry organize and stabilize their industry, particularly in relation to marketing, they will have to accept whatever those in big business offer for their product. The primary producers constitute the only section of the community which has to accept that situation.

If you buy a suit of clothes, the tailor tells you what you must pay for it; but if you sell wheat, the buyers tell you what you will get for it. I can remember when traders in wheat said to me, “ lt is your business to grow the stuff; we will tell you what it is worth “.

We got a Labour government to establish tribunals to stabilize the sugar industry. The results led the former Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden, to say, “ If other industries had a system like the sugar industry, there would not be the trouble that exists in the country to-day “. We brought about the establishment of a court presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, who struck a balance between the big man in the industry and the sugar-cane grower. Supporters of the Liberal Party and some of the Australian Country Party members said that the arrangement splintered every plank in the Liberal platform and interfered with the freedom of the individual, but no government to-day would interfere with the system that operates in Queensland. Our system provides for an approach to the court. All the relevant information about manufacturing costs, wages and cost of production are submitted to the court, and it determines a fair deal between all sections.

That is what we want in industry, but those engaged in primary industries have had no say at all in the past. It was a Labour government in Queensland which altered that state of affairs. I am not saying this merely for political reasons; I simply want it known that we stand for that principle. We do not stand for big business. I was with Sir Arthur Fadden when he said that big business sucked the very life-blood out of the people in the country. On that statement, he first won a seat in Parliament. I do not agree with all that sort of thing, but I do say that there was a time when the farmers generally had to work long hours for little reward. It was tough; but a Queensland Labour government spent £70,000 out of Consolidated Revenue to organize the farmers, and that was the beginning of a far better state of affairs for the Queensland primary producers. It was also the beginning of the conditions that apply throughout Australia to-day.

Because of many other factors, the man on the land is being priced out of existence.

He cannot stand up to the economic conditions and still get a fair price for his commodity because of inflation. The Government announced through the GovernorGeneral’s Speech that it intended to look at these factors which are having a detrimental effect on the economy. 1 do not know how long they will look at them.

Senator Wright:

– Surely £160;000-,000 in wages added to costs last year has had an effect!

Senator COURTICE:

– That amount would never have been added if the cost of living had not risen. In the final analysis, the farmer is at the bottom of the load, and he can meet the situation only by organized effort, particularly if the economy of other countries is better than ours. As a matter of fact, so far as prices are concerned, inflation in Australia has become worse than it is in any other country. When the Labour government was in office, the farmers Were paying a wage of £6 a week. Now they are paying three times that amount. I remember when the sugargrowers were asking for a rise in the price of sugar to 4id. per lb. Now they are getting 10d., and they want another Id. because inflation is adding to the difficulties of the farmers. They must have organized marketing and stabilization.

The Opposition supports this bill. I am sure that the Australian Wheat Board itself believes that it will function more satisfactorily with another representative from Queensland. I feel sure that it will be a good thing for the board. I do not intend to criticize the board’s activities. 1 anl not sufficiently familiar with the situation to know whether some of the criticism of the board offered by other honorable senators was justified, but this measure is a simple ohe and the Opposition supports it.

Senator WADE:
Victoria

.^ Before I address myself to the bill I want to make a passing reference to some comments that have been made by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty); As a wheat-grower, I am somewhat cdn.cerned that the Minister believes he has some cause for complaint about the quality df the wheat we send to Tasmania. His remarks imply that he was not referring to an isolated case, and that the wheat of which he complained is the only kind that they get in Tasmania. I would like to think that it was the exception rather than the rule. If it were the rule, I am sure that the Minister is in a position where he could bring this matter to the notice of the Government and have it rectified. As wheat-growers, we have a responsibility to deliver the goods. I do not countenance the delivery of wheat that is not up to quality. On the other hand, if he referred only to an isolated instance, I am somewhat surprised at his temerity in finding fault. I remind him that Australian wheatgrowers are to-day, and have been for some time, delivering to Tasmania wheat at 2d. a bushel less than the cost price. That is what we are doing for Tasmania, and it is typical of the contribution the wheatgrower has been making to those parts of Australia that need some assistance. I say to Senator Henty, in quite a kindly way, that if he wants every grain of wheat polished and burnished to meet his particular needs, he should pay the extra 2d. a bushel to meet the cost of production, and I have hot the slightest doubt that the wheat-growers Will deliver to him the type of wheat he wants in small packages.

Senator Wright:

– Are you suggesting that because of that 2d. difference you are discounting the quality?

Senator WADE:

– I am not. He referred to one other feature and I am surprised that a man of his great understanding has not sought the reason for it. He would have the Senate believe that wheatgrowers in, I think, the Launceston area have to rail their wheat t6 the capital city and fail it back for stock feed. Why do they not keep it on the property iri the first instance? There is no limit to what a man may retain on his own property for his own needs. There is another aspect in which he may interest himself. Down through the years this Government, recognizing the great value of primary production to this country, has made provision for selling wheat at a lower price to men who need it for starving stock. It may well be that it is a business proposition for Launceston people to rail wheat to the capital city and pay return freight on it. I am not suggesting that that is the procedure adopted, but if it were so it would not be new in the history of the Australian wheat industry.

I should not like Senator Henty of any one else to believe that this Government would countenance a policy that would not permit a wheat-grower to retain on his own property all the wheat that he Heeded for his own requirements. It is perfectly true that the grower is not permitted without authority to sell to other people who may need feed or seed. That authority can be obtained, and that is a provision that has been wisely written into the legislation to prevent trafficking. So I would not advise my Tasmanian friends to come Into the Senate and complain about the quality of the wheat they get. If it is not What it should be, theirs is the responsibility to take the matter up with the Australian Wheat Board and to See that they get what they are entitled to. If they demand that every grain shall be, as I say, polished and burnished, and if they pay the extra 2d., we who grow the wheat will see that they get exactly what they want. On both sides of the chamber-1- isolation on this side but in bulk on the Opposition side- I hear a deriding of the Australian product that means so much to the economy of this country. There is far too much of that. I hear people saying, “ poor this and poor that”. To the uninitiated, it sounds a fascinating, story, but the man who understands puts those people in a pigeon hole reserved for persons who do not know what they are talking about.

Senator Dittmer:

– You are not implying that inferior wheat is sent simply because it is 2d. cheaper?

Senator WADE:

– No. Since its inception, the Australian Wheat Board has had a very honorable record of transactions.

Senator Wright:

– You said that if we paid an extra 2d. you would burnish and polish every grain.

Senator WADE:

– -If the honorable senator wants me to develop that theory, I shall be very happy to do so. With typical political acumen I have mentioned burnishing and polishing without saying to What degree. Now let me come to the bill that is under discussion. Naturally, we support the legislation, which makes provision for the addition to the Australian Wheat Board of another member from Queensland. Although it is true that Queensland has in the past produced only a small quantity of wheat, it is equally true that the quality has been perhaps the best in Australia.

Senator Dittmer:

– –That is typical of Queensland.

Senator WADE:

– It may be confined to wheat. Any encouragement that can be given to Queensland to increase its production of high quality wheat is a good investment for Australia. In spite of some of the rather inept interjections we hear from Queenslanders, I believe that Queensland can produce a man of the calibre to make an impression and impact on the board. I am sure that he will strengthen the board. Those who criticize the board do not know what they are talking about. I have followed the wheat industry and the workings df the board and I have nothing but admiration for the job the board has done. Australia is the only country that is not bogged down with a huge wheat surplus. It is the only Wheat exporting country that has not been subsidizing wheat or flour and to-day it has a wheat industry that is in a most healthy position. Our storages to-day are Sufficient to meet the needs of this year and possibly” of next year: This is the only country that can boast df that. These things dd not just happen, because the marketing df Wheat is one df the most difficult problems that can be undertaken.

I suggest that the growers themselves are the best judges df what the board has done. I could traverse the history of some State boards. Members of those State boards have not enjoyed any security of tenure of office, for the simple reason that the task was beyond them. But the Australian Wheat Board has given such wonderful service to the community. charged as it is with the’ sole responsibility df Storing and marketing wheat, that to my knowledge on not one occasion, even when ballots of growers were taken, has a member of the board been replaced. I think that is a tribute to the manner in which the board has carried out its most exacting work.

I was particularly interested to hear the speech of Senator Pearson, whom we have all come to regard as an authority on the wheat industry. He made some- thoughtful contributions on segregation, the chairmanship of the board and other matter’s. I do not want to labour the matter df the chairmanship. I think that it is a matter on which the growers, whose product the board sells, should be consulted. I remind the

Senate that only quite recently the term of the present chairman, Sir John Teasdale, was extended for another period which, it is true, was shorter than the preceding period. On not one occasion before that extension did I hear of an individual or a spokesman of the industry having urged replacement of the chairman. That is a record that cannot be ignored. When the growers have such great faith in a man’s ability and integrity in the selling of their product, side issues are not of paramount importance.

Senator Pearson told us what was happening in South Australia in relation to segregation. South Australia is almost in a unique position. It was the last State, with the exception of Queensland, to install bulk handling. In Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, bulk-handling facilities have been in operation for many years. They were never intended for segregation. When wheat is being delivered in bags it can be put in different stacks and segregated, but I do not know of any place in Victoria where wheat is delivered in bags. I suppose there are isolated places, but I do not know of them. The fact is that we have not got the facilities.

Wheat segregation in itself is a very desirable objective. I believe that there are people who require this type of wheat and there are people who require that type of wheat and we can meet their needs if we can develop and expand our industry. Anything that will encourage the expansion of our industry must be prominent in our thinking. However, as our industry is today, I cannot see that an effective system of segregation can be put into effect. I say that with great respect to Senator Pearson, who is justly proud of the attempt that South Australia has made to segregate its wheat.

Senator Pearson:

– South Australia is segregating wheat under the bulk-handling system.

Senator WADE:

– That can be done with a light crop, but not when the bins are full. It is a very loose method of segregation. I repeat that segregation is desirable, but quite out of the question. In Victoria, we have segregation inasmuch as a miller, a shipper or a buyer may require a certain type of wheat from a certain area. In my own particular area, the Wimmera, we grow the best wheat in the world as far as quantity is concerned, and I repeat the word “ quantity “. It is a fairly low protein wheat. Higher up towards the Murray, the Mallee country produces a better quality wheat.

Senator Maher:

– What about higher up in the north?

Senator WADE:

– Yes, I know that in Queensland a good quality wheat is produced. A miller or shipper knows where he can get the type of wheat that he requires to fill his order. If any one is foolish enough to suggest that we, as a nation, should segregate our hard wheat at this stage and sell it to an overseas buyer - for instance to Japan which is always looking for our hard wheat - then he just does not know the facts of life so far as the flour industry is concerned. How in the world can you make a loaf of bread if you have not got a high-protein wheat to blend with a low-protein wheat?

Some one in this chamber to-night boasted at great length about the quality of a wheat for the manufacture of biscuits. We do not live on biscuits. The position could arise that if we, with all the enthusiasm that we are capable of, searched for markets for our high-protein wheats - our hard wheats - and sold them even at a premium, we would not know what to do with the wheat we had left. I say to the Senate, and to anybody else who may be interested, that the Australian people are entitled to the best that the wheat-grower can produce for them, and I cannot see any reason why the people of this country should be asked to be satisfied with anything less than the best. Let me add that I believe the industry must be expanded and developed. I believe there will be markets for our hard wheats when we get a sufficient margin of hard wheats to make the export of them possible. Then let us develop those markets as hard as we possibly can.

A good deal has been said about stabilizition. My friends of the Opposition have endeavoured, with great zeal and little logic, to state a case for their own contribution to stabilization. Some of them, I think, have made a study of the history of stabilization, but they have not told the full story. As a wheat-grower, I should like to take just one minute to tell the Senate what the Labour Party has done for the wheat industry in Australia. If I have to go back into history as honorable senators opposite dearly love to do, I will go back to 1930, when, after the boom years, the wheat-growers pleaded with a Labour government to stabilize the market at 4s. a bushel. What was the result? The Labour Government failed them. Mr. Scullin was the Prime Minister, and his government turned down the request of the wheat-growers. The result was that the Labour Government went out of office because the wheat-growers would not tolerate that sort of thing.

I come now to Labour’s stabilization scheme of which honorable senators opposite are so very proud. I remember that one night some years ago I listened to a debate when Labour occupied the treasury bench. I heard the Right Honorable John McEwen - some honorable senators were inclined to be cynical to-day about his contribution to the national economy - move ten amendments one after the other to the legislation that the Labour Party was bringing in on wheat stabilization. Because honorable senators opposite had the numbers they brutally squashed every one of those amendments. However, every one of those amendments was finally written into the wheat stabilization scheme that is in existence to-day.

I shall add to the pleasure of my friends opposite by reminding them of something that my old friend, Senator Sheehan, was pleased to mention in the Senate to-day. He made some reference to the New Zealand wheat deal. He inferred quite generously, that the wheat was sold at less than world parity because the price eventually rose. I remind him that such was not the case. What actually happened was that a secret deal was made between a Labour Government in Australia and another Labour Government in New Zealand to sell the Australian wheat crop, at the expense of the wheat-grower, for 5s. less than the world price. The wheat-grower had to pay. We almost had to use a gun to get the information out of the government of the day; it just would not come clean. I remind those who set themselves up, with such enthusiasm, as champions of the wheatgrower, that that happened in 1945 and 1946. It is now only 1960. That is the monument that the Labour Party has raised to itself. It shows Labour’s solicitude for the wheat-grower.

I should now like to deal with something that might not be quite so controversial, but it is a matter of great interest. A good deal has been said about the difficulties that we are encountering in exporting wheat. Senator O’Byrne is interjecting, but I say to him that Tasmania gets our wheat at well below the cost of production. As a Labour man he no doubt enjoys that. We have a problem to deal with in our home market to which we should pay some attention. There are some interesting features about our home market. Australia consumes approximately 55,000,000 bushels of wheat as flour per annum. In spite of the known increase in the population of approximately 3 per cent, per annum, there has been a steady decline, particularly over the last few years, in the local consumption of wheat as flour, stock feed and breakfast foods. I shall quote the figures for flour in 1956-57. In that year we consumed in the form of flour 41,162,000 bushels of wheat. In 1957-58 consumption fell to 39,206,000 bushels and in 1958-59 rose to 40,000,000 bushels. The produce trade showed an even more serious decline, although the figures here, are affected somewhat by drought and the release of wheat by the Australian Wheat Board for stock feed. In 1956-57, 19,520,000 bushels of wheat was consumed as stock feed. The amount consumed as stock feed in 1957-58 was 14,000,000 bushels, and in 1958-59 it was 11,000.000 bushels. That is a most interesting analysis because it discloses that although our population has increased by 300,000 a year the local consumption of wheat has dropped by 10,000,000 bushels a year.

I believe that there is great merit in the suggestion that the wheat industry should adopt the methods being pursued by other primary industries in fostering local markets. At the moment, the Australian Dairy Produce Board is advertising for the services of a research officer and proposes to embark upon a sales promotion campaign with a view to increasing the demand for dairy products. The Victorian Egg Board is doing exactly the same thing. At the moment it is advertising over television. Tn the course of that advertising, a picture of an egg appears on the screen and the viewer is reminded that the egg is a good food. I suggest that butter is associated in the mind with bread, eggs with cakes and so on. In the same way wheat suggests bread. There need be no conflict between one primary product and another when it comes to advertising. My point is that primary industries have a golden opportunity to get together and adopt a common method of selling their products to the people of Australia. Australia is our best market because it consumes 55,000,000 bushels of wheat a year ar.d there is surely some real advantage to be had from wooing such a market.

During the course of my research, superficial as it may have been, into the bread industry, I obtained a publication by the British Medical Association entitled, “ A Family Doctor Special”. In it there is an article headed, “ White or Brown “. It relates to bread. The author is no less a person than David Williams, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., and I venture the opinion that a man with those letters must speak with authority. In his article, he says -

The argument about which bread is better for you - white or brown - has been going on for two thousand years. Even the ancient Greeks argued about it It is only since the war that a full-scale two-year investigation established that both white and brown are equally good for you.

The investigation was made by two of Britain’s leading experts in nutrition, Professor R. A. McCance and Dr. E. M. Widdowson, both of the Medical Research Council. The place- Germany. For in Germany at that time there were plenty of people underfed and hungry, ideal subjects for such a study.

Professor McCance and Dr. Widdowson chose an orphanage in Duisburg. They conducted their investigations under the most precise and controlled conditions, scrutinising every aspect of the children’s diet and health with minutest care.

There they gave the 150 hungry boys and girls bread, plenty of bread, as much they wanted. The children were then carefully divided into groups. Each group was given a different kind of bread and this was the basis of their diets. In every other respect their diets were exactly the same.

Now what did the experts discover? Writing in “Family Doctor”, August, 1957, they recorded these two outstanding observations:

The first was that the children grew and improved equally, no matter what kind of bread they ate.

The second observation was that all the children did extraordinarily well on all the diets.

The two experts tried again at another children’s home. They got just the same answer as before.

Senator Maher:

– Was it wholemeal bread or plain brown bread?

Senator WADE:

– The article does not say whether it was wholemeal or brown bread. The tests were made with white and brown bread. The important point to remember is that it does not seem to matter to one’s health whether one eats white or brown bread; it is merely a matter of taste, and to-day, just as in centuries gone by, bread is still the staff of life and the cheapest food in the world. Some people seem to have the phobia that white bread does certain things for you while brown bread does something else, but I suggest that all people would be well advised to accept the scientific conclusion that the colour of the bread matters not, and that bread is still the staff of life and the cheapest food.

I come to what must have a substantial effect on the Australian market. I refer to the attitude of those people who say, “ I do not eat bread because I have got to think of my figure.” Because of this attitude, it is very rarely that one finds bread, the staff of life, on the tables of eating establishments. Dealing with this subject, I quote the following article by Mr. J. S. Taylor, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., also written under the auspices of the British Medical Association -

How much bread should you eat? As much as you like and as often as you like, provided you are eating all sorts of other foods as well.

If you are slimming, you may have to cut down on bread and other foods, but bread is too good to cut out all together.

Most sensible slimming diets allow you a series of choices. Many of them provide for three or four slices a day. Some allow you more. And it does not matter whether you eat it as bread or as toast. It does not matter whether it’s white or brown or wholemeal.

So enjoy bread as you always do if you belong to the nine out of ten people who are not on a slimming diet. If you belong to the oneoutoften group who do have to slim, make sure that yours is a sensible slimming course. Not one that cuts you off entirely from the traditional staff of life.

I want to say finally that whilst we all have strayed from the bill before the Senate, in my opinion the contributions to the debate will add something to the welfare of this industry, which means so much to the future of Australia. It behoves all of us who call ourselves Australian to take a live interest in the development and preservation of this great industry.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

Mr. President, I want to be quite candid. 1 rise to speak in this debate because of interjections that were made during the course of Senator Courtice’s remarks. The Labour Party supports the bill. The bill has, as its purpose, the appointment to the Australian Wheat Board of an additional full-time member for Queensland. We have heard some interesting speeches to-night about the wheat industry. One claim made was that Tasmania produced the best biscuit-making wheat in the Commonwealth. We also heard - and this I believe to be quite true - that Queensland is fortunate to grow a hard variety of wheat. I agree with some of the points made by Senator Henty. We must rid our minds of any idea that quantity is the only thing that matters in this industry. It is quality that counts. In recent years countries that formerly imported wheat from Australia have now become exporters of wheat. The latest country to make the change is Italy. In debates of this kind we hear a lot about the teeming millions of people to the north of Australia. But they are in the same plight as the unemployed in this country in the bad days - if they have not got the money they do not get the wheat. It is true that the United States has shipped wheat to parts of Asia under certain financial conditions other than cash on the nail.

Some honorable senators mentioned the flour-milling industry. Like many other honorable senators I regret that the flour mill has left the small country town. The small country town in days gone by supported a flour mill which provided employment for about twenty men. The average wage of those men to-day would be in the vicinity of £15 a week. If you take £300 ready cash out of the average small country town it has a very bad economic effect on the town.

Why did we lose the flour market in the East? The reason is that we did not produce the goods. As Senator Henty said, if we trace the history of the flour market in the East we will find that we did not stick to quality. Some years ago I was in Nhill in Victoria, in the heart of the good wheat-growing Wimmera area. The manager of Noske Flour Mills Proprietary Limited told me that his firm had attempted to induce the farmers in Nhill and surrounding areas to grow wheat of a high gluten content^ for which the mill was prepared to pay a premium price. Unfortunately, the farmer who dealt with this mill must have had dealings with Flinders Lane and other parts in the heart of Melbourne because he did not keep to sample.

I understand that Australia is likely to have in the current season a carry-over of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. It is true that last year one State had to import wheat because of drought conditions and it is also true that the average carry-over from a safety point of view is between 70,000,000 and 80,000,000 bushels. But it is cause for concern that we are still following the old practice of paying for wheat on a fair average quality basis. It has been said by honorable senators on this side of the chamber over the years that you cannot have a country with prosperous city areas and poverty-stricken rural areas. Nor would the reverse situation be satisfactory. If Australia is to develop as we all want it to develop we must strike a happy medium between the rural areas and the city areas. If we want to retain our world markets for wheat and flour the industry must take stock of itself and ask itself whether it is wise to rely only on a fair average quality or whether it should agree that a portion of the crop should be of a higher gluten or protein content. Assuming we enjoy good seasons in the future - apart from last year the seasons have been good - I am concerned to know how we will dispose of our crop. I agree with Senator Henty that if we want good markets and good prices for our wheat we must produce the goods. I enjoy bread as much as anybody but nobody living in a city is getting the best class of bread. We must face up to that position. We must give the consumers in this country what they want just as we must give overseas countries what they want. We cannot expect people to buy bread that is not as good as the bread that was manufactured previously from flour having a higher gluten content than the flour that is used to-day.

I do not intend to enter the controversy concerning which government introduced the wheat stabilization scheme; history speaks for that. The story that Senator Wade related concerning the wheat deal with New Zealand was typical of the outlook of the Australian Country Party. I have always believed that the members of that party have only been bumps on the body politic. I have had a lot of dealings with them, and I have taken from them everything that I could get in a political sense.

Senator Gorton:

– What Senator Wade said was true.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No, it was not true. I shall tell the interjector what happened. It is true that an agreement was made between the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture at the time, Mr. Scully, and the New Zealand Minister of the day. It is also true that Australia received the ruling price on the day that the agreement was signed.

Senator Mattner:

– That is not so.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, it is.

Senator Mattner:

– No.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Wait until 1 have finished, and then you can have a go. lt is only twelve minutes past ten o’clock, and I shall conclude my speech before long. I understand that within a week of the signing of the agreement, the price of wheat rose on the markets of the world. I know that it is easy to be wise after an event, but the fact of the matter is that the Parliament and the people were not informed of the agreement on the day that it was signed. History shows that the wheat-grower did not lose too much.

Senator McKellar:

– You could not convince the wheat-growers that they did not lose much.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I could not hope to convince them in view of the statements that have been made by supporters of this Government over the years in order to gain votes. All I want to say is, that I have often discussed this matter with the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), who succeeded Mr. Scully in the then Commerce and Agriculture portfolio.

Senator Mattner:

– What did he say?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I shall not go into that. I am merely relating the facts as I know them. You are just like a jackass out in the bush. If you have your yap after I finish, I shall listen to you. The wheat industry is vital to Australia. It has not been stabilized 100 per cent., as the wheat-growers have been guaranteed their cost of production only in respect of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat exported in any year. In some years, it is quite probable that a greater quantity than that will be exported. I think that the wheat industry is in much the same position as the dairy industry, which is guaranteed a price to cover cost of production on what is consumed locally, and on 20 per cent, of what is exported. Until we increase our population to the stage that a much larger percentage of our production of wheat is consumed here, and if this country is to prosper, the wheat-growers will have to make up their minds whether they will grow f.a.q. wheat in the main, or sow a greater acreage of high gluten content wheat. If more high-quality wheat is grown, we will be assured of overseas markets for the flour that is manufactured from that wheat. I want the wheat industry of this country to progress more and more, but I believe that if the majority of the farmers continue to grow wheat of other than high quality, and bountiful seasons are experienced, before long we will find ourselves faced with a situation similar to that with which we were confronted three or four years ago. At that time, if I remember correctly, we had to expend £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in the construction of temporary silos in which to store the wheat that remained unsold. I believe that it would be to the advantage of the industry to produce high-quality wheat for export, because the wheatgrowers would then be able to sell the whole of their production and they - indeed, Australia as a whole - would benefit. I conclude by saying that, in common with all previous speakers during this debate, I support the bill.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– During this debate, speakers have ranged far and wide - from segregation of wheat to the price of sugar. They have referred to inflation, and three Opposition senators have referred to the policy in relation to the wheat industry that has been applied by the Australian Labour Party in years gone by.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1958 to provide for the appointment of an additional member representing the Queensland wheatgrowers on the Australian Wheat Board. I heartily support this small, but important measure. I recall that, not many years ago, the wheat-growers in Western Australia endeavoured to have a second representative of that State appointed to the board. Therefore, 1 am very glad to note that there has been general acceptance, on both sides of the chamber, of the proposal to appoint a second member representing Queensland. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) for introducing this measure. The sole full-time Queensland representative on the board has had a very strenuous task to perform over the years. In addition to attending the fortnightly meetings of the board in Melbourne, he has had to keep in touch with the wheat-growers and inform them what was taking place within the board. I applaud the action of the Minister in bringing this legislation before the Parliament. Some years ago the members of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation requested, on behalf of Queensland wheat-growers, that such an appointment be made.

I believe that we owe a great debt to the chairman and members of the Australian Wheat Board. At great sacrifice to themselves, they have devoted much time and energy to their work. I know many of them personally and therefore have an appreciation of the amount of time and money that they spend in this work which I think all of them regard as a duty to their fellow growers. I pay particular tribute to the representatives of my own State, Mr. Don Maisey and Mr. Ken McDougall, who spend a great deal of time each fortnight in travelling to meetings of the board. Those two men leave their farms on Monday, proceed to Perth and catch the aeroplane that night to Melbourne. They attend the meetings of the board for one or two days and then return to Perth. They compile their reports, and it is perhaps Friday night or Saturday when they get back to their farms. They work on their farms for a week and on the following Monday go through the whole procedure again.

An honorable senator said to-night that he thought that some of the members of the board did not get out enough amongst the growers in order to see what was going on in the industry. The two Western Australian representatives on the board are the president and vice-president of the wheat section of the Farmers’ Union of Western Australia Incorporated, an organization which consists of all the wheat-growers in Western Australia. We are very lucky to have as our representatives on the board two men who are very keen and also very well informed about the industry.

In some speeches that have been made to-night there has been criticism of the chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. This criticism has astonished me. When I heard of similar criticism last week, I could scarcely believe that it had been made. In Sir John Teasdale we have a man who came out from England many years ago and took up a property on the outer area of the wheat belt, where he has worked for many years producing wheat and developing his property. At the same time, at great sacrifice to himself and his family, he has always been in the thick of the fight on behalf of wheat-growers. At one stage he was president of a growers’ organization in Western Australia. For many years he was Western Australian representative on the Wheat Board, and in 1950 he was appointed chairman of the board. I defy any one in this chamber, on either side, to find in this country a man with greater knowledge and experience of the growing and marketing of wheat. I can only think that some of those who have voiced this criticism must have had reasons other than Sir John’s age for suggesting that he should not be chairman of the board.

Had Sir John Teasdale, in the past, not given every satisfaction to the growers, surely that fact would have been mentioned at the time of his re-appointment as chairman of the board, at the end of his previous term of office. As Senator Wade has mentioned, no such criticism was forthcoming at that time. When Sir John was making up his mind whether or not to accept the position again, he must have been conscious of his age, and he must have felt that he could carry on the job before he decided to accept the position. The Minister, when making the appointment, also must have been aware of Sir John’s age, but he too, knowing the wide experience that Sir John had had, and with every confidence in him, had no hesitation in re-appointing him.

Perhaps the Australian Wheat Board has made a mistake in not having a vicechairman. I hope that when Sir John feels that he can no longer carry on, the Government will consider the policy of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, which is that the chairman of the board must be a wheatgrower. This Government believes that the products of primary industry should belong to those who produce them, and that therefore the producers should have a say in the way that their products are sold. I think that the wheat-growers should have a great deal of say in the sale of wheat.

Senator Sheehan:

– The first chairman of the Australian Wheat Board also was a wheat-grower.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes. A great deal has been said in this chamber to-day, and1 also in another place recently, regarding the segragation of hard and soft wheats. In fact, this subject has been a hardy annual for some time. Year after year it comes up for discussion, and I believe that it will continue to do so for a good deal longer. I point out to those who are in favour of segregation that they must remember that at the present time we are disposing of our f.a.q. standard wheat. Some years ago when we had on hand large quantities of wheat some people said that we must cut down production. Now, after only a few years, we have small stocks of wheat on hand. In fact, I believe that New South Wales has had! to import wheat.

In my opinion, if we segregate the hard from the soft wheat, we shall find it difficult in years to come to sell the stocks of soft wheat that will have been built up. If the countries that have been mentioned earlier to-night, such as Japan, which are always after our hard wheat, buy all our hard wheat and leave us with the inferior types of wheat, we shall find it most difficult, because of the huge stocks of soft wheat that exist in northern America at the present time, to sell our inferior-type wheat.

Senator McCallum:

– Roughly speaking, what would be the proportion of hard wheat and the proportion of soft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I should not like to answer that question at this stage. It is true that it can be claimed that there has been no upward trend! in the protein content of standard f.a.q. samples. The potential increase in protein content due to the introduction of ley farming and better farming methods and the changes in varieties sown in some States have been offset to a great extent by the fact that favorable seasons experienced in

Australia during the past few years have tended to a degree to produce a softer type of wheat. On the other hand, we have the recent relative expansion in cultivation of lighter lands in Western Australia. However, despite this development I feel that in the years to come, there will eventually be an upward trend in the average protein content of Australian wheat.

There is a move to carry out an inquiry into the protein content. During the term of office of the previous Minister for Primary Industry, Mr. McMahon, and in response to a decision of the Australian Agricultural Council, the department convened a conference on wheat qualities in 1956. Delegates to that conference included representatives of all parties concerned with wheat production, the processing and marketing of wheat including growers, millers, bakers’ organizations, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, the Australian Wheat Board, the State wheat bulk handling authorities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and State and Commonwealth departments. The conference reviewed in general terms the production, handling and marketing of Australian wheat in relation to quality. It considered that further information was needed before it could make a recommendation. The conference then stated that, to obtain such information, it would have to appoint two committees.

One committee was a technical committee on wheat quality which comprised the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics as chairman and representatives of each of the mainland Departments of Agriculture, the C.S.I.R.O. and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. This committee was to report on present wheat production in Australia, and the potential for quality improvement. The other committee was to be called the Marketing Committee and it comprised representatives of the Australian Wheat Board, the State wheat bulk handling authorities, the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, the Federal Council of the Flour Mill Owners and the Society of Bread Manufacturers. This committee was to discuss the quality requirements of domestic and export markets for wheat and flour, and the means by Which these requirements might be more adequately met. 1 believe that those two committees have now finalized their reports, and I take it that they will be submitted to the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. Therefore, you can see that State departments, State handling authorities and growers’ organizations are playing their part in seeing that this important question of wheat qualities is thoroughly investigated. I believe that when these reports come out, all of us - growers and consumers - will have a better idea of what is involved in this very important subject. So I support the purpose of this bill in granting Queensland growers an extra representative on the Australian Wheat Board.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– in reply - In replying very briefly to this debate which, if not directed to the bill at times at least has related to matters which gave rise to the bill, I think I can say that from time to time we have been able to find a kernel of ideas among the chaff of the debate. I foresee that such grains of wisdom will be brought to the attention of the responsible Minister. Senior members of his staff have already heard this debate and will make sure that the points raised will receive the Minister’s attention. If he should think it desirable, no doubt they will be referred to the Australian Wheat Board. Two main points have been referred to continually. The first is whether there should be segregation of hard wheat from soft wheat, or whether there should be separate storage facilities for hard and soft wheats so that those who grow the hard wheat which gives a lower yield may have space in which to store it and receive the higher price that it should bring. I am told that there is a good deal to be said on both sides of this controversy but for myself, the fact remains that if the world, or many countries in the world, have a preference for hard wheat over soft wheat, and will buy hard wheat and not soft wheat, we must give them hard wheat or nothing if we are to supply them at all.

The second point which was raised often during the debate was, who did and who did not do most for the wheat-growers in times long past and recently. I am sorely tempted to engage in this controversy, but being a man of peace, I shall content myself by saying this: The wheat-growers of Australia, having subsidized the general public and the Australian taxpayer to the tune of millions of pounds during the days of high wheat prices, are now receiving back some recompense from the Australian Government and the Australian taxpayers.

Senator Wade:

– Not yet!

Senator GORTON:

– Well, obviously they are on the point of getting it, but such recompense as they receive from the Australian taxpayer and the Australian Government will be very much greater than it would have been were it not for the actions of this Government and the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who was the Minister responsible at the relevant time.

I think that is all I will say in replying to this debate. After all, with delightful unanimity, the Senate agrees that Queensland should have two permanent representatives on the Australian Wheat Board instead of one permanent representative and one alternative representative. I hope and believe that, as a result of the unanimity of the Senate in enabling this bill to be passed, the board will be able to act in a better way, not only to representative Queensland growers but on behalf of growers generally, and that the points that have been raised during this debate by practical wheat-growers will receive the consideration of the practical wheat-growers on the Wheat Board.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 385

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Seventh Annual Report

Debate resumed from 29th March (vide page 338), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the following paper: -

Seventh Annual Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, together with financial accounts and the Auditor-General’s report thereon, for the year 1958-59 - be printed.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– When the Senate adjourned last night we were discussing the annual report of the

Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I had traversed briefly references in the report to Australian uranium deposits, the ore reserves that appear to exist at present, the depletion that had taken place at Rum Jungle and that was quite evident at United Uranium and South Alligator. The report referred also to the depletion of ore reserves at Mary Kathleen. There was mention of the possibility of the existence of further ore at Mary Kathleen, but let us be quite clear that there is a distinction between possible ore and proved ore. In the light of the fact that uranium appears to be the fissionable material of choice at present and for the near future, the Government has a real responsibility to stimulate the search for further uranium deposits. This search would not be stimulated by the granting of such a mean reward as was given to Mr. White, the discoverer of Rum Jungle.

The report mentioned the need for trained personnel and the difficulty of obtaining them. Although the percentage of scientists in the House of Representatives and the Senate may not be high, we are the people who determine the activities of men who are eminent in science and are particularly equipped in the field of nuclear physics. We cannot have work done, whether in research or in the practical application of the results of research, unless we have men who are eminently trained in this field. I emphasize that it was the Government’s responsibility - a responsibility that it has appeared to shirk up to the present - to encourage boys and girls to embark on a scientific career. I commend the Government for the interest it has taken over recent years in university construction and extension. For that, I give all credit to the Government. But that is not enough in a growing country which must in the comparatively near future utilize the results of nuclear research, which has probably made the greatest contribution that the world has witnessed towards the lifting of the standards of man, particularly in such areas as Australia.

The Government has the responsibility of meeting the need as it arises. It is of no use to talk in terms of creating scientists just at university level. They may be fashioned at that level but their minds must be moulded in no small measure at the secondary school stage. The Government has done absolutely nothing, even though it realizes that the States have failed in the fields of both secondary and primary education. Boys and girls are being denied a secondary education, some because of economic circumstances, some because facilities are not available, some because there is an insufficiency of science teachers, and some because an undue emphasis has been placed on other subjects. The Government, realizing the desirability of an extension of nuclear activity, has the task in front of it. Not only must it encourage university or tertiary education, but also it must ultimately come into the field of secondary and even the field of primary education.

Most people assume that scientists and technologists are made or trained at university level. What do we find at that level? The previous Labour Government introduced a system of Commonwealth scholarships. Many boys and girls have benefited from those, and in the process Australia has ultimately benefited because of the contribution those persons have made to the material well-being of the community. The succeeding government has not increased the number of scholarships proportionately to the increased number of boys and girls attending universities.

Senator Scott:

– What about the scholarships granted by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission?

Senator DITTMER:

– They are not very many. A perusal of the report will show that a few of them are at undergraduate level and very few at post-graduate level. All the information is detailed there and it indicates a parsimonious approach largely because the Government has denied the commission a reasonable amount of money to spend, in comparison with what is being spent in such countries as Canada, the United States of America and England.

In the field of university education, the Government has a responsibility to see that men and women are encouraged to undertake science courses. What are the methods that can be utilized to encourage human beings to enter this field of endeavour? There could be a discriminatory approach to monetary allowances as between those embarking on a science course and those embarking on a professional course of medicine, law or dentistry. Investigation has revealed that the financial returns to scientists, engineers, technologists of various types, mathematicians and science teachers are meagre in comparison with the returns to medical practitioners, dentists, and lawyers of all types. Consequently, the Government should, I feel, consider increasing the monetary allowance to those boys and girls undertaking university science courses. It should increase the number of post-graduate scholarships. In this way, it would be providing the community with a reasonable number of men and women who would be qualified to enter this field of human endeavour.

Has anything been done by any one in Australia? The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to Professor Harry Messel of the School of Physics at the University of Sydney. He was one of the first men really to direct the attention of Australia to the need for investigation in the field of nuclear physics. He was appointed from Canada to the Chair of Physics in the University of Sydney. I know that many claim that he is an exhibitionist and a showman. If that is the case, Australia could well do with many more like him. Nuclear physics is not a new branch of science. It has been with us since before the First World War. It was utilized for destructive purposes in 1945, when atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Professor Messel was the one man who realized that the improvement in the standards of living of this country, as of other similar countries, depended on the efficient utilization of nuclear power and associated activities.

Professor Messel was responsible in 1957 for the establishment of the Nuclear Research Foundation at the University of Sydney. That, of itself, was eminently worthwhile, but more important still he directed attention to an anomaly that existed and gave us the reason why we were not obtaining a sufficient number of science graduates and were losing our best graduates - our honours graduates - to universities and research institutions overseas. He pointed out that we were losing those who were prepared to enter the field of research and those who had accomplished something in the field of practical physics because of inadequate financial remuneration. Professor Messel directed attention to this not on one occasion but on many occasions.

He did not hesitate to make statements to the press or to speak from the platform decrying our parsimonious approach to this matter. As a result he was able to interest many of the leaders of industry.

I think that we as a parliament should pay a tribute to the many eminent scientists who have served on our own Atomic Energy Commission and our Radiation Advisory Committee. We should also pay a tribute to our eminent and successful men in business who have played a part by serving on various committees. Others have been prepared to serve on the Nuclear Research Foundation in the University of Sydney. As a result of the activities of Professor Messel and the men associated with him, many graduates have been retained for and are now serving Australia. The University of Sydney is the only university that has really focussed attention on this particular field of science. I know that some of the other universities have one or more graduates engaged in research but their efforts are infinitesimal when due regard is paid to the requirements of this country from a research point of view.

We all have a responsibility whether we support the Government or are members of the Opposition to emphasize the role that scientists, technologists and mathematicians must play in this country if we are to survive. Our population is small and what are at present accepted as our ordinary fuels must be hauled long distances. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) has given us a very interesting address on power generation in Australia at the present time. He spoke of the potentialities over the next ten years. Although we all agreed that it was an extraordinarily interesting address, as far as I could gather the press paid no attention to it at all, despite the fact that Australia’s position as a nation could depend in no small measure on the utilization of the most suitable means of power. We have to think in terms of the future of this country and what will be the position in ten or twenty years’ time. We have to consider not ourselves alone, but also those who will succeed us.

It is interesting to think in terms of what is happening in the field of nuclear research overseas, but we have also to think in terms of what this country is doing. Some may think that we can afford to be complacent because other countries are so different from our own. They are highly industrialized and have large populations and short distances. Australia is not highly industrialized, has a small population, and is a country of great distances. We must remember that we are on the threshold of development. We face difficult environmental circumstances judged by any standards. It does appear, and not to me alone, that the future of this country lies in the field of nuclear power and radio activity. That is why I think we have a responsibility, as members of the Government or as members of the Opposition, to realize what the future holds for us if we make intelligent use of this power. We have a responsibility, whether through our own efforts or through instrumentalities set up by the Government, such as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, to make available to industry such information as will be of value in improving standards of living, in lowering costs in industry and improving efficiency so that we can continue to compete on the world’s markets.

That is the real purpose of research. It should not be undertaken purely for the satisfaction of individuals engaged in it although they do derive real pleasure from the results of their scientific and intellectual efforts. The end result should be to make a contribution to the welfare and comfort of men, women and children, not only in this part of the world, but also in other countries where people are living under sub-standard conditions.

We must pay a tribute to all those men who have served on the various committees whether they be scientists or industrialists. As I mentioned last night, the phases of activity of these committees are dealt with in the report. One particular chapter is devoted to research. The chapter is interesting but highly theoretical and much beyond the reach, I should say, of all of us if we are to make a correct and accurate assessment of what it contains. However, as representatives of the people we have a responsibility to understand what these men are doing in this field of endeavour, and we have an obligation to provide them with the necessary sinews to carry on their work. The sinews they require from us are enthusiasm and support, but even more than that they require finance to enable them to extend their activities. We will discharge our duty and fulfil our obligations only if we provide them with finance.

The research work that has taken place, particularly at Lucas Heights, has had to do with assessing the efficiency of various types of reactors, and fuels. Investigations and analyses have been made of various samples of fuel that have been supplied. It is to the credit of those engaged therein that after such a short period they have been so successful. It is a tribute to their ability as scientists, and we should be truly grateful for the interest they have taken in their work.

As I have said, I realize that there is a future for nuclear power. Some persons ha ve suggested that there is an air of mysticism about nuclear power. We know it is dangerous, but there is nothing mystical about it. It happens to be only a different form of energy which can be converted, like any other form of energy, such as thermal energy, into the form we desire for our particular purposes. Mention has been made of the fact that in many countries, particularly the English-speaking countries, there has been an increase in the proved reserves of such accepted fuels as coal and oil. It has been suggested that nuclear power is dangerous. Fire is dangerous, but we have managed to live with fire. We were expected to live with it, and we had to live with it in the same way as, in the process of time, we will have to live with nuclear power, irrespective of its danger.

Debate interrupted.

page 388

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir

Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 March 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19600330_senate_23_s17/>.