View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
17 July 1946

17^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

HOUR OF MEETING
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- DAIRYING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- DUTCH SHIPS
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
QUESTION
- FOOD FOR BRITAIN
QUESTION
- WHEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- RABBIT SKINS
QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATE
QUESTION
- COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- RE-ESTABLISHMENT
QUESTION
- GALVANIZED IRON, WIRE AND WIRE NETTING
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION
QUESTION
- MATERNITY ACCOMMODATION IN HOSPITALS
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL BENEFITS SCHEME
QUESTION
- WOOLLEN TEXTILES
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE
QUESTION
- COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
ARMED FORCES
- Permanent Camps
QUESTION
- CLOTHES RATIONING
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- REPORTING OFFICERS’ ORGANIZATION
AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1946
DAIRYING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1946
- Second Reading
WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1946
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- INCOME TAX - PRIMARY PRODUCERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Darwin: Replanning
- Salvage Commission: Termination of Appointment of Secretary
- Wheat Industry : Imports ; Exports to New Zealand
- Commonwealth Employment Service
- Prices Control
- Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2611

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

page 2611

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister state whether an international education conference is to be held in the United States of America next month? In view of the changes that are constantly taking place in education, and the dependence of a democracy on the maintenance of high educational standards for its survival, will the right honorable gentleman agree to the Government financing the attendance of representatives” of the Australian Teachers Federation at the forthcoming conference, as it does trade union delegates to conferences of the International Labour Office, as it is most desirable that Australia should be represented?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This proposal has been “the subject of discussion between the Australian Teachers. Federation, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and the Director of Education. It has been intimated to the Federation that, although the Commonwealth Government is willing to provide facilities for educational research or conferences, it it not prepared to make a direct contribution towards defraying the expenses of such gatherings. Australia was one of the first of the nations to accept the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I believe that a conference of that body is to be held next November. Australia will be properly represented at it. In the circumstances, the Commonwealth is not prepared to make a direct financial contribution of the kind suggested by the honorable member.

page 2611

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Drought Relief in Victoria.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister forCommerce and Agriculture received any request or suggestion from the Government of Victoria for a review of the conditions under which drought relief from the funds jointly provided by the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria shall be made available to dairy-farmers in that State?

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no knowledge of any such communication having been received. I shall inquire in the department whether one has come to hand within the last few days, and shall reply to the honorable member later.

page 2611

QUESTION

DUTCH SHIPS

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for the Navy and Acting Minister for External Affairs any information regarding the movement of the six Dutch vessels which are reported to have left Australian ports yesterday? Can the honorable gentleman say whether these vessels have sufficient fuel to reach their destination, and what action, if any, is being taken by the Commonwealth Government to ensure that they have the requisite fuel?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Aircraft Production · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

have received no intimation about the matter raised by the honorable member, but I feel sure that the ships would not have been despatched unless adequate fuel arrangements had been made.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister seen a press report to the effect that several of Dutch ships which hadbeen held up in Australia for the last ten months, because of the refusal of waterside workers to load them, have left Australia? Was the Government advised of the projected departure of these vessels? Is it a fact, as reported, that the Bontikoe is being escorted to Java by the M anoora? If so, what is the reason? . Were the Dutch ships manned by Australian personnel; and if so were arrangements made by the Government for Australian seaman to be made available for this purpose?

Mr MAKIN:

– No official intimation has been received either by the Department of the Navy or the Department of

External Affairs relative to the departure of Dutch vessels from Australia. The Manoora is taking certain Dutch nationals from this country to a point of disembarkation nominated by the Dutch authorities. Australian personnel are not manning any vesselsof Dutch origin.

Conditions in Stacks and Silos - Sales to Japanese - Registration of Growing Areas- United Kingdom Purchases from Canada.

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture make a statement about the condition of wheat held in stacks and silos throughout Australia, stating particularly whether the wheat has been infected by mice? Can he say when the earlier wheat pools will be finally wound up? How much wheat from pools Nos. 1 and 2 was sold to the Japanese in 1941? How much did the Japanese contract to pay for the wheat, and has the purchase price yet been received?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– Not long ago, I was advised by the Australian Wheat Board that the condition of wheat in stacks and silos was excellent. This information was confirmed when I made a personal inspection of the wheat during a tour through various parts of New South Wales. The condition of the wheat reflects credit upon the Wheat Board, and upon the agents who received the grain. As for the other matters raised by the honorable member, I shall have inquiries made, and supply the information later.

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the necessity for obtaining maximum production of wheat, and the uncertainty that exists in relation to the registration of wheatgrowing areas, will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture make a statement as to what steps should be taken by wheat-growers in order to be registered under the scheme, and what action they will have to take when the new proposals embodied in the bill now before the House become law ?

Mr SCULLY:

– At present growers may plant wheat without restriction. They may secure a temporary licence upon application to the local stabilization boards established in each of the States. Only a temporary licence may be issued at this stage because the whole of the Wheat Stabilization Regulations will disappear at the end of this year when the National Security Regulations expire. Future wheat registrations will be left in the hands of the States. In the complementary measures which Ave hope will be passed by the State Parliaments shortly, provision will be made for the establishment of State stabilization committees which will issue registration certificates to the wheat-growers. As the result of recent discussions of the Agricultural Council I am confident that the State stabilization committees will be representative of wheat-growers who will see that no injustice is done to intending growers or to those already established in the industry.

Mr McEWEN:

– Has the Minister for Commerce and- Agriculture any information which would enable him to confirm a report that has reached Australia in the last day or so, that an agreement between the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom has been concluded or is on the point of conclusion, under which the Government of the United Kingdom will purchase its requirements of wheat from Canada for four or five years, at a price ‘ at Montreal that, is equivalent to 10s. Id. a bushel Australian currency for No. 1 grade Australian wheat?

Mr SCULLY:

– I shall have an inquiry made, and supply a full answer at a subsequent sitting.

– COMMUNIST PARTY.

Activities in Canada and Australia.

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Acting Attorney-General seen a report in this morning’s press giving extracts of the final report of the royal commission in Canada on Communist and Soviet activity in that country, wherein it is stated that communism in democratic countries changed long ago from a political party into a Soviet instrument for creating unrest and provocation? The report urges that Canada’s security measures should be co-ordinated and strengthened to prevent agents from infiltrating into positions of trust in the Government.

Has any action been taken by the Government to investigate communistic activities ih Australia? In view of the report of the Canadian royal commission, is any counter espionage work being carried out in Australia to circumvent the operations of enemy agents?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– L have not read the report to which the honorable gentleman has referred, but I shall read it with interest when I have an opportunity to do so. As the second part of the honorable member’s question relates to a matter which cannot be suitably replied to offhand, I suggest that the honorable member should place that portion of the question on the notice-paper.

page 2613

QUESTION

RABBIT SKINS

EXPORT Levy.

Mr FRASER:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is still confusion in country districts about . the export levy on ,rabbit skins. Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture say whether a local buyer of the skins has any authority to, show the amount of the export levy on his purchase docket and to deduct the amount of ls. 6d. from the amount that he previously agreed to pay to the seller?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– I say most emphatically that if the procedure outlined in the honorable gentleman’s question has been adopted it is quite improper. No levy is imposed upon rabbit skins until they are at the point of export. Babbit skins are selling at phenomenal prices. At recent sales the price of 290d. per lb. was paid for first-grade skins. If those skins were for export a levy of ls. 6d. per lb. would have to be paid by .the exporter. Any person who acts in the manner implied in the question is fleecing the rabbit-trappers.

page 2613

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Supplies from Nauru.

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen the statement of Mr. Bruce Shearer, Chairman of Directors of Australian Chemical Fertilizers and Sharby Fertilizer Company Limited, that an early announcement would be made by the Government about shipments nf phosphatic rock from

Nauru ? Can be indicate what quantities of phosphates are likely to be made available to farmers this year and next year ?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– A press announcement which will be made immediately will give the information required by the honorable member.

page 2614

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Blair Athol Field

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Prime Minister seen the statement of the Premier of Queensland that while the Commonwealth is clamouring for coal there is enough coal at Blair Athol to last a century of two, and that he has written to the Commonwealth Government asking for co-operation with the State in the development of the coal? Has the right honorable gentleman any information upon this matter?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– The working of coal measures in Queensland has been investigated by the Secondary Industries Commission, two members of which recently visited Queensland and had discussions with the Premier about the utilization of the deposits for local consumption or export. I understand that the proposal would involve the expenditure of a fairly considerable sum of money, because it would entail the construction of a railway line, better transport facilities, and, perhaps, loading equipment for ships. A proposal in regard to the utilization of the deposits will soon come up for consideration by the Government. I can give the honorable member no exact details at the moment.

page 2614

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Employment: Preference to ex-Servicemen.

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Section 27 of the Re-establishment and Employment Act provides for preference in employment for ex-service men and women, but subsection 5 states that nothing in the section shall apply in relation to the engagement for employment- by an employer of a person who is already employed by him. I ask the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction whether it is a fact that before positions in the Public Service are advertised in the press, people have already been temporarily appointed to them so that when the matter of a permanent appointment arises, the’ act can be evaded or avoided by the person already temporarily engaged and employed by the Government in that position? In particular, I ask the Minister to inquire into certain positions advertised by the Department of Commerce and Agriculture for Trade Commissioners overseas. Were the provisions of the act avoided in the manner that I have described when the Government made those appointments? Will the honorable gentleman also inquire into appointments in the Department of External Affairs, and, indeed, in other Commonwealth departments, for the purpose of ensuring that the intentions of the act shall be observed?

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall make inquiries immediately and supply an answer.

page 2614

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON, WIRE AND WIRE NETTING

Mr WILLIAMS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Works inform the House whether further quantities of galvanized wire netting, barbed wire and galvanized iron can be made available to farmers? Has the honorable gentleman read in the press a statement that enormous quantities of these materials are lying in Queensland, where they are awaiting distribution? Will he investigate the matter with a view to relievingthe urgent needs of farmers?

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not seen the report to which the honorable member referred, and I have no knowledge of large quantities of galvanized iron, barbed wire and wire netting being available in Queensland or elsewhere. I do not believe that the report is correct, but I shall make inquiries and advise the honorable member of the facts.

page 2614

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION

Questionnaire to Schools

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Has the Minister for Information seen in the Melbourne Argus, the report relating to a questionnaire alleged to have been circulated by his department to headmasters of leading schools in Victoria to test the opinions of their young pupils ? Is ita fact that the questionnaire contained these questions -

Do you think Australia should remain attached to the British Empire?

Do you think Australia should cultivate her relationship with America?

Do you think Australia should stand on her own feet as an independent country?

Have you a steady girl friend?

The replies to the questions were to be. sent to America. I ask the Minister whether those questions were distributed to the schools, as stated in the report? Will he inform me what possible relation the fourth question has to the three preceding questions, or its value–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is now inviting a debate and so spoiling a good question.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– What was the value of the fourth question, especially in view of the stated cost of the department, namely, £1,200 a day?

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was rather amazed and confounded when my attention was first drawn to this matter. I could not believe that such a questionnaire could have been prepared by an officer of my department. Unfortunately, the fact is that such a questionnaire was prepared by a junior member of the staff, and circulated without reference to the Director-General of Information. When the DirectorGeneral ascertained that this action had been taken without any reference at all to any other officer, he immediately sent telegrams to the headmasters of the schools concerned,and told them to take no notice of the questionnaire. The Argus newspaper, which published this questionnaire, sent one of its reporters to see me, and when I declined to discuss the matter the honorable member for Wimmera was apparently requested to ask a question in the House. The questions included in the questionnaire gave me a good deal of concern. It is not the function of any officer of the Department of Information to question Australia’s membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or to cast doubt upon it. Neither is it desirable to raise any doubt about whether we should have the closest association with the United States of America. I do not know where the question about the “ steady girl friend “ came from, and can only put it down to the youthf ulness of the officer concerned. I admit that an error was made. I have taken steps to see that it does not happen again. But if every error committed by a member of the Argus staff were elevated into a public or political issue, it would hasten the decline that is already noticeable in that once influential newspaper.

page 2615

QUESTION

MATERNITY ACCOMMODATION IN HOSPITALS

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received an invitation from the East Torrens County Board of Health to attend a meeting to discuss the shortage of maternity accommodation in hospitals. Can the Minister represening the Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services inform me whether there is any way by which the Commonwealth Government can assist the local health authorities in overcoming this shortage?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– If the remedy involves the construction of new accommodation the problem is difficult. There is a problem all over Australia in relation to shortage of staff. In regard to new constructions, I repeat what the Prime Minister has said to Premiers conferences and also to honorable members when the Hospital Benefits Bill and the Tuberculosis Bill were before the House. The right honorable gentleman made it clear that whenever and whereever the States were able to undertake the construction of new accommodation the Commonwealth, would give such financial help as it could. I shall discuss with the Minister the particular question of affording help to the organization in the honorable member’s electorate to which he referred, and ask him to give further information on the subject

page 2615

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Broadcasting of Proceedings: Equipment - Report of Committee

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether he will have a further investigation made of the quality of the instruments used for broadcasting the proceedings of the Parliament, and also the general organization, having regard to the conditions in this connexion that exist in New Zealand ? I also ask whether it is correct that cardioid microphones are superior to others? If this is so, how many of these instruments are being used in this House? If they are npt being used extensively, why is this so?

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– I shall bring the honorable member’s highly technical question to the notice of the PostmasterGeneral in order to see whether some action can be taken in the direction he desires. Parliament has been on the air for only a week or two, and the broadcasts are proceeding on a more or less trial and error basis. I have no doubt that, with experience, broadcasting on its mechanical side will improve. The information available to honorable members on the Government side of the chamber is that the public- generally appreciates what they are saying in the House.

Later :

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As Chairman, I present the second report of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee, which reads as follows -

The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings submits its Second Report for presentation to each House of the Parliament and recommends its adoption.

The Joint Committee” has further considered the general principles upon which there should be determined the days upon which, and the periods during which, the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast, which were specified in its First Report adopted by both Houses on 5th July, 1940. In accordance with section 12 (1.) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 194B, the Joint Committee has now resolved -

That the following words be added to paragraph (2) of the general principles set out in its First Report: - “or at 11.30 p.m., whichever is the earlier “. (The paragraph would then read - “ (2) Periods during which proceedings shall be broadcast: The broadcast shall commence on each sitting day at the time fixed for the meeting of the House whose opening proceedings are to be broadcast on that day as determined by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings in accordance with section 12 (2.) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1 940, and shall cease when the adjournment is moved in the House which is being broadcast at that time or at 11.30 p.m., whichever is the- earlier.”.)

That the following paragraph be added to the general principles set out in its First Report: - “(C) The general principles specified in the First Report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings adopted by both Houses on 5th July, 1946, shall be observed. generally by the Joint Committee in making determinations in accordance with the Parliamentary Proceedings .Broadcasting Act 1946 but nothing in those general -principles shall be taken to prevent the Joint Committee from departing from those general principles in order to meet any unusual or special circumstances.” (Sgd.) J. S. Rosevear, Chairman. 16th July, 1946.

The recommendations now made are considered- by the committee to he necessary in order to modify certain provisions in the first report which, on review, were found to be somewhat rigid. Paragraph 2 of the First Report made it mandatory for the broadcast to continue until the adjournment is moved by a Minister. The committee examined the times at which the adjournment had been moved over a recent period of twelve months, and found that 47 per cent, of the motions had been made- before 10.30 p.m., 41 per cent, between 10.30 p.m, and 11.30 p.m., and 12 per cent, after 11.30 p.m. The committee also ascertained that the cost of extending the broadcast past 11.30 p.m., the time . at which the second national stations normally close down, would be approximately £50 an hour. It was considered that, even although the number of occasions on which the adjournment is .moved later than 11.30 p.m. is likely to be relatively small, the continuation of the broadcast to a late hour cannot, as a general practice, be justified. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that, unless unusual circumstances render an extension desirable, the broadcast should not continue past 11.30 p.m. The additional words and paragraph are designed to give effect to this recommendation and will also allow the committee to make such determinations as are deemed desirable in order to meet any unusual or unforseen circumstances which may arise.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) - by leave - agreed to - y

That -the report he adopted.

page 2616

Mr HOLT:

– Will the Prime Minister, for the guidance of the community generally and in order that purchases might be planned, state the currency of existting clothing coupons? Is a further issue of clothing coupons proposed? If so, when will it be made?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I shall consult the Ministers concerned, and try to obtain a complete answer for the honorable member.

page 2618

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

CONNELLAN AIR SERVICE.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Connellan air service, as the Minister for Air knows, operates from Alice Springs and serves the whole of the Northern Territory. Is the honorable gentleman aware that his department has cancelled the licence of the aerodrome at Alice Springs known as the Town Site aerodrome, thus obliging this air service to operate from an aerodrome south of the Macdonnell Ranges, whichis most inconvenient to both the service and the people who use it? Is the honorable gentleman also aware that his department has indicated the probability of its cancelling the licences of a number of other aerodromes used by this service ? If he has no knowledge of the matter,’ will he inquire into it, with a view to determining whether it is possible to make arrangements ensuring the continuance of this service, which has changed the whole of the conditions of life of very many people in the outback parts of ‘the Northern Territory?

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

– Beyond the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Country party mentioned this matter to me yesterday, I know nothing of the closing down of the aerodrome at Alice Springs. If it has been closed, I should say the reason is that it does not comply with the safety standards prescribed by the Civil Aviation Department - standards which are constantly being raised. I should not be willing to support the department if it did anything to interfere with the splendid service rendered in the Northern Territory by Connellan over a period of many years. I shall have the matter looked into, with a view to having the service continued on a satisfactory basis.

page 2618

QUESTION

REPORTING OFFICERS’ ORGANIZATION

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for the Army say whether it is a fact that during the war there existed a body known as the Reporting Officers Organization, the members of which, work ing without pay, reported on various activities to Army Head-quarters, making their communications under secret conditions to a post office number? Is this organization still functioning, and if so, what is the justification for keeping it in existence in peace-time?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I was not aware of the existence of such an organization, but I shall have inquiries made.

page 2618

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1946

Motion (by Mr. Frost) agreed to -

That leavebe given to bring in a bill for an act to amend sections eighty-nine and ninety of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-1945.

page 2618

DAIRYING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1946

Motion (by Mr. Scully) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Dairying Industry Assistance Act 1943.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

A subsidy is being paid under the terms of the Dairying Industry Assistance Act 1943 on milk or cream which is to be processed at a factory into butter, cheese, or dried, condensed or concentrated milk. “When the proposals on which the. subsidy was based were framed, it was intended to confine the subsidy to. dairy produce processed in premises registered as factories under State legislation, or under Commonwealth laws in relation to the export of dairy products. Doubt has been raised as to whether the definition in the act meets this intention, and the purpose of this bill is to clarify the position.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Fadden) adjourned.

page 2618

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th July, (vide page 2556), on motion by Mr. Scully -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. McEwen had moved by way of amendment -

That all the words after “That” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for stabilization of the wheat industry for a period of not Jess than ten years excluding the 1945-46 harvest, and, in particular, to provide -

a guaranteed price basis of not less than 5s. 2d. . per bushel, bagged, at growers’ sidings, for the next crop;

thereafter, an annual guaranteed minimum price related to cost of production, allowing a margin of profit ;

the entitlement of growers to the full net realization of each annual pool less a’ contribution to a stabilization fund of not more than 50 per cent, of realization in excess of the guaranteed price;

payment by the Government to the Australian Wheat Board of the difference between the prevailing export parity and the price at which any wheat is sold by Government direction for export or consumption within Australia, other than human consumption within Australia;

the establishment of an authority to ascertain current costs of production to enable the operation of the foregoing provisions; and

that, subject to the foregoing, the Australian Wheat Board shall have full authority in negotiating export sales, and shall be the authority to advise the Minister and act for the Minister in respect to any regulation of production.”

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– There is nothing so galling to a new member of this House than to have to listen, in the course of a debate such as this, to what some honorable member or party did for the wheat industry, ten, twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago. Such recapitulations of ancient history we had from the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller), the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), and the honorable member forRiverina (Mr. Langtry). The honorable member for Riverina said that talk does not count, and I agree with him. There is an old saying “ Talk is cheap but it takes money to buy land “. What honorable members opposite do not seem to realize is that it takes money, land, enterprise and energy to grow wheat, and that the man engaged in. the wheat-growing industry must be given at least as reasonable a deal as other members of the community.

I strongly favour the stabilization of the Australian wheat industry, but I believe that any plan to that end must be on a basis that will sustain, maintain and be the means of developing this great asset of our Commonwealth. The bill before the House is not acceptable to me. As the representative of the most important wheat-growing constituency in the whole of Australia, I assure honorable members that more than 95 per cent, of the growers in that area are opposed to the bill in its present form. And that is but putting it mildly. We have been told by honorable members opposite that wheat-growers throughout the Commonwealth are fighting for it, but the truth is that its supporters are in the main the members of the Government and some of those on the payroll of the Government. The wheat farmers who favour the bill represent but a very small percentage of the farming community. The bill is but a reflection of the Minister’s own preconceived ideas on the subject. I shall tell a story to illustrate my point. When I was a small boy I was taken to witness at a concert the performance of a great ventriloquist. We all were amazed at his wonderful skill at creating the illusion that his voice came from the far recesses of the stage. In the middle of the performance a great noise occurred at the back of the hall. It seemed as though a fight were in progress. Everyone turned round to look, only to discover “that it was only the ventriloquist. That is what is happening in connexion with this bill, which is nothing more than a reflection of the Minister’s ideas. All through the Wimmera electorate the farmers are opposed to the scheme as propounded in this bill. I make that statement deliberately and I shall prove it up to. the hilt. During the campaign that preceded the by-election for the Wimmera seat at which I was the successful candidate, I was consistent in my opposition to this scheme, and the candidate who secured the next greatest number of votes also opposed it, especially the proposal to include the 1945-46 harvest in the plan. Yet on the first count five out of every six votes cast in that great wheatgrowing constituency were cast in our favour. Surelythat is sufficient proof of the attitude of that great body of wheat-growers towards the measure. I have said that I favour the stabilization of the wheat industry. I do so, not only in the interests of the wheatgrowers themselves, but also because I believe that we should do everything possible to ensure that Australia may be in a position to. contribute the greatest quantity of wheat in order to feed the starving millions of the world. Honorable members opposite endeavour to create the impression that honorable members on this side of the House are opposed to a stabilization scheme. Nothing could Le farther from the truth. The stabilization of prices for primary products has always been the aim of the Australian Country party. My only regret is that certain provisions have been included in the bill and others have been omitted which preclude me from supporting the measure as it is now drafted. For that reason I give my whole-hearted support to the amendment which embodies all the conditions that are necessary to ensure that the industry will benefit and . that those engaged in it will receive justice. There is absolutely no reason to support the contention that the 1945-46 harvest, should be included in the scheme; but there are countless reasons of vital importance why it should be excluded. The wheat-growers, after years of drought, now, as perhaps never before, require capital to put in order their machinery - sheds, their houses, their fences, and even their personal belongings, and generally to equip themselves to produce this- most important food for the world’s starving millions. The exclusion of the 1945-46 harvest from the scheme is of vital interest to individual growers; but there are interests deeper and more vital still. The whole future of the industry as Australia’s second most important asset may be jeopardized. Furthermore, I contend, that the Government cannot justify the inclusion of last season’s crop in a scheme which has not yet received the endorsement of this Parliament. The Government, however, seems to act on the misguided principle that might is r.ight We had a glaring example of the application of that principle in this Parliament prior to the introduction of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Bill when on assembling here last month we were confronted by a forest of microphones installed in anticipation of the passage of that measure, showing definitely that the Government did not intend to bc influenced by any matters that might be revealed in the debate on that bill. Now the Minister has said that the 1945-46 harvest will be included in the wheat stabilization plan, again showing this dictatorial attitude, an attitude that meets neither the demands of the democracy nor the approval of clear-thinking Australians. If the plan in its present form is adopted, the Australian wheat-growers will receive a lower net return than any commercial wheat-growers in the Englishspeaking world. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Lemmon) has apparently striven to confuse the issue. Speaking on this bill the honorable gentleman said -

If such a scheme had been offered to growers within the last sixteen years it would have been grasped.

How ridiculous is that. statement! Surely the honorable member must know that the rising costs of all those things that are necessary to primary production have made it increasingly essential to our future progress as a nation that those who produce the primary products must be on a satisfactory basis at least equal to that of other members of the community. What would have been a fair proposition in the past is now highly inadequate. Who among us would not like to purchase a suit of clothes, a motor car, cigarette papers, or a home at the level of supply and costs prevailing during the last sixteen years? Surely it is agreed by all that the present ‘ must be viewed in the light of existing circumstances, and what some former government did or what would have pleased the wheat-growers sixteen years ago, “like the flowers that bloom in the spring”, has nothing to do with the case. Why hark back to the days of long ago? We must view the wheat industry in the light of the circumstances that prevail to-day, and not those that may have prevailed years ago. Going back into the past is useless. Conditions then were as different from what they are now as a 600-mile-an-hour aeroplane is different from a bullock dray and the cabbage-tree hats that were in use then.

The inclusion of the 1945-46 crop in the scheme would be most unjust, because the crop has been acquired under the National Security (Wheat Acquisition) Regulations, and really cannot be included in this peace-time scheme, as the growers, having been led to believe that they would receive the full value of the crop, have entered into financial obligations with other members of the community that cannot be overlooked. The amendment provides for “ a guaranteed price of not less than 5s. 2d. per bushel, bagged, basis at growers’ sidings for the next crop “, which is an improvement on the bill, as “growers’ sidings” is substituted for “ f . o.r. ports “. It would not only give, the growers a more reasonable return but also be a step towards true decentralization. Only by a sound policy of decentralization shall we be able to maintain our present standard of living. No wonder the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Cain, said in Melbourne last Saturday -

Melbourne is becoming too unwieldy. There cannot be a balanced economy until the population is more evenly distributed.

No wonder, too, the Prime Minister said in this chamber during his financial statement -

Production is the key to further relief from taxation.

Those leaders know that, and it is clear that if we do not decentralize population we shall be heading for the greatest crash in our history.

Mr Fuller:

– That is what Opposition parties should have done years agowhen they had the opportunity.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Back to the old days again! The key to prosperity is a return to the land. It is the only solution for this ill. Acceptance of the amendment by the Government would eventually do much to give us a balanced economy, and it would perhaps be the forerunner of a return to the days when primary production was unhampered and Australia’s name rang throughout the world as the land of opportunity. Let us examine how “ growers’ sidings “, instead of “ f . o.r. ports “ would contribute towards decentralization. The man outback would he benefited. Why should not the man 300 miles from the port get as much for his wheat as the man 30 miles away? Men in the cities have too much advantage over the primary producers. For instance, a man in the Wimmera whose machine breaks down may need a duplicate part to put it in order. He rings up the distributor in Melbourne for it. It is not long before the telephone operator asks, “Do you want an extension ? “ He takes it and probably before he has been able to order the part he has had two or three extensions, and the call costs him about 9s. A man in Melbourne in a similar plight merely rings up the local supplier for the part and the call cost him 2d. or less.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– And he can speak for as long as he likes.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Yes. We must equalize things for men in the out-back if we are to decentralize industries and population, and if this country is to have a bright future.

The amendment also provides for -

an annual guaranteed minimum price related to cost of production;
payment by the Government to the Aus tralian Wheat Board of the difference between the prevailing export parity and the price at which any wheat is sold by Government direction for export or consumption within Australia, other than human consumption within Australia;
the establishment of an authority to ascertain current costs of production.

It further provides that the price charged for wheat sold for human consumption in Australia shall be reviewed in the light of the change of costs and prices after the present price was fixed and that the stabilization plan should operate for ten years. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Smith) assured us in his speech-

The plan is not for one year but for five years.

If it were for one year what would be its justification? The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) said that the producer must be placed on the same level as the labourer. Let us analyse that. A man has a basic wage of, say, £6 a week. That is the cost of the production of hisservices. What would henot say if some authority said to him, “ You are to he paid £6 a week, but we will retain £2 of that amount to ensure that we shall be able to pay you £6 That is exactly what the Government proposes with respect to the wheat-grower. It says that he shall be given a certain amount of money for his wheat, but that approximately 33£ per cent, shall be retained to ensure that he shall get that amount of money. Never was there anything so unfair as that. It must be put right.

I intend to deal further with- this matter in committee, but, before closing, I desire to make reference to the provisions of the bill. Let us consider clause 6 (1.) -

The Board may- appoint any number of its members to be an Executive Committee and delegate to that Committee such of its powers and functions as the Board; subject to any direction by the Minister, determines.

That looks like dictatorship by the Minister. Let us follow it on to clause 7(3.)-

The members of each Committee shall be appointed by the Minister and shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister.

That also -savours of dictatorship. “Will these committees be formed from departmental officers, businessmen, growers representatives or other government nominees? I move oil to clause 10 (2.) -

The Board shall have and perform all the duties, and shall have and may exercise, in relation to the wheat harvested in any wheat season up to and including the 1045-40 season, all the powers.

That may mean that the old board will not necessarily complete any of the pools or any of its duties. Does this indicate a method of stopping legal action for compensation in regard to any pool that has not been completed and that all pools will be brought under the new law? It looks like that to me. It seems that the producer will have no means of getting a just payment from the pools of the past that should be completed now. Many of them should have -been determined long ago. The growers are calling for finality now. Clause 11 provides -

Subject to this Act, the National Security (Wheat Acquisition) Regulations shall, by force of this Act, in so far as they relate to wheat harvested in any wheat season up to and including the 1945-40 season, continue in force until such date as is fixed by Proclamation, and shall, during such continuance, have the force of law.

Under clause 10 the word “purchase” probably means a definite contract by which the grower is debarred, from objecting to any price, be it fair or not. The bill contains many provisions that are not in the interests of the producers. Here is the most glaring. Clause 21 provides - (1.) For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Wheat Industry Stabilization Board. (2.) The Stabilization Board shall consist of-

a Chairman, an executive member and one other . member each of whom shall be appointed by, and shall hold office during the pleasure of, the Minister; and
1. one member appointed by the Minister to represent each State after nomination by the appropriate Minister of State of that State.

I point out that the Stabilization Board has full power to curtail production, if at any time the Treasury is likely to be required to provide money in order to ‘ bolster the price of wheat. Therefore, the plan is not in the best interests of wheat-growers or Australia as a whole, and I support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Indi. The bill must be redrafted before we shall obtain justice for the man on the land.

A large majority of wheat-growers are opposed to this plan. That is well known. I invited the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to visit the great wheatgrowing electorate of “Wimmera in order to obtain a proper appreciation of the opposition to his proposals.

Mr Scully:

– The wheat-growers in the Wimmera have always given me a warm welcome.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Because they have a personal regard for the honorable gentleman, they will give him a warm welcome; but they do not welcome his plan. Whilst I appreciate the assistance that the honorable gentleman has given to me since I became a member of this Parliament, I must voice the hostility of wheat-growers to this bill. I propose to read extracts from the report published by the Warracknabeal Herald of a meeting of wheat-growers which considered the stabilization plan. Many centres were represented, including St. Arnaud, Wycheproof, Marnoo, Beulah, Dimboola and Horsham. The report “will convey to supporters of the bill the strong, feeling in the Wimmera and Mallee against the plan. The heading over the report appears in large black type - “ Wheat Stabilization Scheme - Opposition to the Federal Plan “, and the introductory passage reads -

Declaring that it might be described as a stop-work meeting of wheat-growers of Victoria, Cr. S. J. King (Warracknabeal), who. presided at the largely attended gathering of farmers of this portion of the north-west at the Warracknabeal Town Hall on Thursday afternoon, May 23, said that it was pleasing to see so many men who were vitally concerned with the stabilization of the wheat industry.

All wheat-growers who attended that meeting are in favour of stabilization, but they are opposed to the present scheme. One of the speakers was Mr. A. 0. B. Shannon, who has been associated with the growing of wheat and other cereals for many years. His parents came from South Australia and were pioneers in- the industry. The report of his remarks reads -

Growers were the ones vitally concerned with the stabilization question, Mr. Shannon continued. Personally he had stuck out solidly for 5s. 2d. per bushel f.o.r. country sidings as a first advance. This was below present world prices, but he considered it a fair price. Just now growers were concerned about securing the greatest return possible for their product. Many had continued to y;row wheat at an unprofitable price, but had stuck to it in the knowledge that the world wanted wheat desperately and were prepared to do their part in supplying that need.

Mr. Gi G.. McGregor, of Callawadda, who is well known throughout the Wimmera -

Spoke vigorously against the proposed stabilization plan, contending that 5s. 2d. per bushel f.o.r. was not sufficient. The wheatindustry was now at the cross roads and he saw grave danger in growers agreeing to accept any price that was not guaranteed above the cost of production, plus a reasonable margin of profit.

Mr. Hines, of Marnoo, a well.known Victorian producer also is reported to Iia ve ;

Expressed the opinion that one of the burning questions to consider was that of whether the 1945-46 harvest should be included in the stabilization plan.

The speakers at that meeting, who did not hesitate forcefully to express their views, are solidly behind the principle of stabilization. Honorable members opposite who declare that those wheatgrowers are opposed to stabilization are only trying to confuse the issue. The fathers of these growers pioneered this industry, which has helped to promote the prosperity of Australia. To-day, the sons are carrying on, despite drought and other adverse conditions. The report of Mr. Hines’s remarks continued -

He opposed this and was also solidly against the plan, which in his opinion proposed to take away, the birthright of the wheat-grower. He did not favour growing wheat and handing it over to the Government- at the _price they proposed to advance.

Those’ passages, which I have read, reflect the hostile feeling of the meeting towards the plan. Only three spoke in favour of it. During the main supporting speech, a steady moan could be heard throughout the assembly, and this speaker was the only one to whom the meeting refused to grant an extension of time. When the motion that he be. granted an extension was put the “ Noes “ resounded and echoed throughout the hall. After further discussion, Mr. J. Feeny, of St. Arnaud, submitted an amendment -

That the meeting refuse to accept anything less than was asked for by the Wheat Growers Federation at the Perth conference.

With the consent of honorable members, I shall incorporate in Ilansard the decisions of that conference-^

Thai the Federal Government be requested to se_t ,up a commission of inquiry on which wheat-growers- should have adequate representation, to ascertain the cost of producing a bushel of wheat, the guaranteed floor price to be the cost of production as determined by the commission with provision for a review every year to relate the price to any rise or fall in the cost of production.
1. That in view of the legal doubt that the 1945-46 harvest being acquired under National Security (War-time) Regulations cannot be included in the peace-time plan, this crop be excluded.
That the federation request that the 1945-46 harvest be not included in the plan as it had been acquired under National Security (War-time) Regulations.
That pending the setting up of the commission of inquiry to ascertain the guaranteed floor price, the 5s. 2d. be accepted as a first advance payment only;- that any difference between the 5s. 2d. f.o.r. as a first advance payment and the determined guaranteed floor price as found by the commission be made up by retrospective payments to the guaranteed floor price.
That the reserve fund be controlled by trustees appointed by the Australian Wheat Growers Federation and the Australian Wheat Board and invested to earn current interest rates.
That when the export price exceeds the determined price, 50 per cent, be paid to the reserve fund to be drawn upon when prices recede below the guaranteed floor price; the balance of 50 per cent, to be paid in cash to the grower; any deficiency in the reserve fund to be made up of a grant from the Treasury.
That the Federal Government be requested to introduce legislation with the object of giving the Australian Wheat Board the necessary statutory powers to assume full control of the production, acquisition, care, sale, distribution and export in conjunction with the Wheat Stabilization Board, and the financing of Australian wheat, together with power under the authority of the Common- ‘ wealth Treasurer to negotiate the necessary advances direct with the Commonwealth Bank.
That a system of wheat licensing and farm registration be included in the plan under the control of a wheat stabilization board.
That production be not restricted below a basis that will permit a minimum of 90,000,000 bushels for export. (j)That the plan operate for a period of not less than ten years.

Those decisions were in conformity with the object of the amendment which I am supporting. Meetings have been held throughout the Wimmera district to protest against the stabilization scheme, and, as the representative of that electorate, I should fail in my duty if I did not voice strongly that opposition. The wheat-growers of the Wimmera are concerned about what will happen to the fund if the stabilization scheme should be discontinued. We know what is happening at present in regard to funds that have accumulated from the sale of wool. More than £7,000,000 has accrued in profits from the sale of wool. The woolgrowers desire to know whether they will receive the whole or even a part of this money, to which I believe, as I observed during question time yesterday, they are fully entitled. Asimilar accumulation of funds may occur in the wheat stabilization fund. If so, will the money be distributed to the growers or will it be paid to other persons in the community who may have had nothing to do with the growing of the wheat? What will be the position of the wheat-grower who, through no fault of his own, has to withdraw from the industry after some years of association with it? Is he to lose one-third of his earnings which may be held in the stabilization fund? These points do not appear to be dealt with in the bill. What will be the position of the man who is operating on a temporary permit and whose permit may be cancelled? Ishe to lose his right to the proportion of his earnings that is being held in the fund. Surely he is entitled to his equity. The Minister has not made these points clear, and we are entitled to information upon them. I am definitely opposed to the Government’s stabilization scheme in its present form. I have always favoured stabilization, and I favour it to-day, but it must be on right lines. At the committee stage I shall refer to many other anomalies in the bill which should not be accepted by honorable members. The only means we have of assuring our future progress is by decentralization through the provision of better conditions for primary producers. True prosperity in this country when it comes will come through the sheep runs and the golden harvest fields.

Mr.BREEN (Calare) [3.54].- The plan which the Government is proposing in this measure for the stabilization of the wheat industry for a period of at least five years is, in my opinion, practicable. In principle it is accepted even by those who, for political purposes, are trying to work up hysteria among certain sections of the community against the Government. The rival scheme proposed in the amendment of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) would undoubtedly be good if the Commonwealth Government and the people of Australia could fairly be called upon to guarantee the fund by the making of inordinate contributions from public revenues. I propose to address myself chiefly to the points of difference between the scheme of the bill and that of the amendment. Both schemes rest on the common ground that the wheat industry cannot stand on its own feet in Australia or anywhere else in the world, and that stabilization depends upon international agreements and organization in exporting countries of schemes which can be dovetailed one into the other. Only by that means can prosperity be guaranteed to those who produce the food of the world. Food production has exercised the minds of members of governments from time immemorial. Even in the days of Livy, Cicero and- Caesar, corn was regarded as a munition of war, and it was recognized that one .way to stabilize the affairs of the nation, and to- discourage people from developing revolutionary activities, was to ensure an adequate supply of food. It was appreciated that if people were well fed . they would be less likely to listen to the fulminations of agitators against existing governments than they would if they were ill.-fed.

The main questions at issue between the Government and the Opposition are. first, whether the 3945-46 harvest should be included in the stabilization scheme; and, secondly,- whether the guaranteed price should be foi- a longer period than five years. The Government has had to consider whether it would- be giving undue consideration to one section of the community as against another section if it did not insist that advantage be taken of the high price temporarily ruling overseas for wheat, in order to assist to ensure the payment, of the guaranteed minimum price for the five-year period. T do not believe that any economist or any other reasonable person, howover rabid he might be in his claim for consideration for the wheat-growers, could do other than admit that the high prices now ruling for wheat in America, and also in certain other overseas countries, as against the fixed price in Australia, are due to the fact that in those other countries there is no price-fixing structure. It must be remembered, also, that the wheat-growers in Australia, who are also consumers of wheat, are receiviug the advantages of our economic structure in relation to wage-pegging, the control of interest rates, and the keeping clown of transport costs. All these factors are important considerations in determining the cost of producing wheat in Australia. It would be unfair to permit one section of the community to obtain that advantage without having to supply a proportion of its production to others who had helped to make it possible. Those who have the benefit of having their views expressed in The Land, the newspaper owned by the Farmers and Settlers Association, .are strongly opposing this scheme, in my opinion purely for political purposes, and. have proposed as an alternative that the 1945-46 harvest should be completely excluded from it, the wheat-grower to have the advantage of a hardandfast cost, structure in Australia and at the same time to benefit from the price fixed on chaotic inflationary conditions overseas. In order, to show that those who contribute articles to the journal I have mentioned can “ see the light “ from time to time, even though their employers are politically prejudiced, I quote this leading article which was published in The Land on the 12th July - ‘

Hie world demand for wool may be only one factor in causing a big rise in prices and it may be the least important one. The main l en son may be the degree of inflation existing in many other countries. If great increases duc to depreciated currencies overseas are to be reflected in fantastic prices for our wool mid other export commodities then it will bc more difficult than ever to prevent a higher degree of inflation in this country with its accompanying fall in the value of the Australian fi.

As a factor in establishing overseas credits, wool is more vital than wheat to Australia. If the argument of The Land be logical in regard- to wool, is it not equally logical in regard to wheat? I have said that the Australian wheat producer is also a wheat consumer in certain circumstances: In this farflung land of ours, “Western Australia may have a bounteous harvest, and simultaneously New South “Wales may experience drought conditions, as is the case at the present time, the wheat crop prospects not being good. If there were no control, the wheat-producers in Western Australia would reap an advantage from the high prices ruling overseas, but only for the time being. ‘ What position would arise when the wheat-grower in New South Wales, who has become accustomed to feeding his stock on wheat, had to purchase his requirements at the prevailing high prices? In order to substantiate my statement that the wheat-grower is also, at times, a consumer of wheat, I shall cite a few statistics from the return by the Wheat Industry Stabilization Committee in New South Wales as at the 31st May, wheat. Without some control, and a stabilization scheme backed by the Government, which will ensure that the price will, not fall below a fixed minimum, there is chaos following a good harvest. That is another reason for the whole- hearted support of this scheme by the wheat-farmers in my electorate. The political hysteria that has been worked

One matter needs a little consideration by the House; that is, whether the .wheat-grower should be in complete control of wheat marketing schemes. If this were merely an equalization scheme; if the surplus receipts were placed in a pool, and were disbursed among the wheat-growers when the price of wheat was low, then they would be entitled to complete control. But if such an arrangement were practicable, the wheat-grower would not need to ask the Government for assistance in organizing the marketing of his product, because that could be done by his co-operative organizations. Honorable members of this House” know that, having regard to the cost of production, a sufficient price cannot be guaranteed without a background of Government finance. If the Government has to guarantee a minimum price, irrespective of whether or not there is enough money in the pool to meet the guarantee, it is entitled to be represented on any body which controls the scheme. As the Government advances public funds, it is entitled to. have some voice in the disbursement of them. If this scheme- is handled properly, and many of the abuses that have occurred in the past are eliminated, there will not be much need for

Government assistance. Having studied some actuarial calculations, I was inclined to the belief that a minimum guarantee of 5s. 2d. a bushel f.o.r. might oblige the Government to provide a substantia’! amount, having regard to the past history of the wheat industry. But I have before me rather illuminating figures which have been taken out by Mr. 0. T. Chapman, president of the South Australian Wheat Growers Association. He has taken a period of 21 years, but I shall deal only with the period from 1929-30 to 1942-43, in which the price fluctuated by as much as 3s. dr 4s. a bushel. Over that period of ten years, if an equalization scheme only had been operating, the wheat-farmer in South Australia would have received 4s. 6£d. a bushel for his wheat at Moonta siding. With such a background, it could be argued that the Government might not need to underpin the scheme by providing government finance for the next five years. If this scheme is to be financed for only five years there is nothing wrong with the wheat-farmer who produced for the 1945- 46 harvest foregoing some of what he would have received, seeing that the price that he will get per bushel for what he produced in the 1945-46 harvest will be far above the cost of production, even 03i the assumption that it was much higher in that year than it had been in any previous period. As against this, the question is asked : What will be the position of a farmer who was in production at that time, and now wishes to sell his property? What is to happen to his equity? I remind honor-, able members that much thought has been given to the rehabilitation of exservicemen. Because they were in the armed forces it was not possible for them to have been producing wheat during the period from 1942 to 1945. If the Government had hesitated to throw everything into the defence of Australia, it is doubtful whether the farmer who had. a good harvest in 1945-46. would have got the benefit of it. Some one else might have gathered that harvest. The fighting men of Australia are primarily responsible for the preservation of Australia from its enemies, but, as I have said, they were not able to grow crops during the period from 1942 to 1945. thus, the farmer who was able to carry on during that time, while others were away fighting for him, will be making a comparatively small contribution under this scheme to the post-war stability of the ex-serviceman who goes on the land and raises crops from now on. The asset of the farmer who remained on his land has been enhanced in value as a consequence of the sacrifices of ex-servicemen, and it is those ex-servicemen whom we must consider during the next four or five- years. I have a poor opinion of the patriotism of anyone who is not prepared to do what is necessary to guarantee the economic stability of ex-servicemen in the time ahead.

I confess that the figures which I have cited astonish me. I believed that, over the period under review, the arrangement for price equalization would not meet the situation, and that the scheme would have to be buttressed by a Government contribution. But that may not be necessary. In the past, the average wheat-grower lived from year to year. Even with the assistance of co-operative organizations, growers were generally unable to hold ‘ their wheat for two or three years. They had to sell immediately the wheat wa.= harvested, with disastrous results to themselves. However, with a Government guarantee, an equalization scheme must be successful.’

We must’ also give attention to methods of preserving stored wheat from . injury. Conditions during the next four or five years will be very much the same as those which prevailed immediately after the last war. Honorable members will recall the .big harvest after the last war, and the drought which followed. They will also recall scandals associated with the disposal of second-grade wheat, and wheat damaged by mice. The British Government had acquired a part of the Australian crop, and it sent, Professor Lefroy to Australia to investigate the situation. At that time, there were no silos for storing wheat, and it was necessary to stack in bags. Discussing the situation as it then existed, Professor Lefroy said -

The sound policy for Australia is to cultivate as large a stock of wheat as possible. There will bc a terrific food shortage after the war.

How well .that could be said of the situation which exists to-day. The professor went on -

Wheat can be saved from weavil. Stored, as 1 suggest, your wheat will keep indefinitely - 1 will guarantee five years at least.

It is still possible to preserve bagged wheat for at least five years. Conditions are much the same now as after the last war, and they should produce the same result, so let us be guided by what happened then. We should guarantee to the grower a f air return for his labour, while still ensuring that the people will get their food at a price which they are able to pay. That is of fundamental importance. If food is npt made available to the consumers at a price which they can ‘pay it follows axiomatically that the wheatgrowers themselves cannot be prosperous.

Various commissions have been appointed to find out the cost of producing wheat.. The Gepp Commission made an exhaustive inquiry into all’ phases of the industry, an4 arrived at a figure based upon an average of the costs on a limited number of farms. I suggest, however, that such a system cannot produce satisfactory results if there is. a big diversity of costs on the farms under consideration. In the electorate of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen), I have seen men trying to grow wheat on irrigated land. The cost of producing wheat under such conditions could not be less than £l a bushel, and such a result should not be taken into consideration when assessing the average cost of production. There are areas in New South Wales where it would cost 10s. a bushel to grow wheat, whilst there are others in which the cost would not be more than 2s. 6d., provided the farmer has been on his land for years, and holds it free of debt. Of course, if a farmer, even in the same area, bought his land during recent years at £14 or £15 an acre, he could not possibly grow wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel. In arriving at a fair figure for the cos.t of producing wheat we .should consider the cost on a fair, average sample of Australian land the capital value of which is reasonable. No good result would be achieved by trying to strike an average over the last 50 years, during which prices were sometimes high and sometimes low. It is also necessary to consider whether ; the farmer’s position is financially sound, or whether he has to pay out too great a part of his returns as interest on borrowed money. The Gepp Commission found that the two principal items in the cost of production were labour and interest. Interest charges have been considerably reduced because of the operations of the Commonwealth Bank. When farmers .had to go to private banks for overdrafts, the rate of interest varied considerably as between one borrower and another, depending upon the bank manager’s idea of the applicant as a business risk. For instance,- one-man might have to pay 6i per cent, on his overdraft, whilst another might get money at 4£- per cent. It will be seen how this factor alone could seriously affect the cost of production as between one farm and another, even though the land might be similar, and both farmers received the same price for their crops. Since the Commonwealth Bank has -gone into, active competition with the private banks, and since interest rates have been under the control of the Prices Commission, there has been a general decline of overdraft rates of interest. At the present time, the average overdraft rate in the wheat belt is no more than 4 per cent, whereas, in 1939-1940, it was between 6 per cent, and 7 per cent. This reduction is one result of the increased trading activity of the Commonwealth Bank and of the financial policy of the Labour Government.

The other important factor in the cost of producing wheat is the cost of labour. The average family of men on the land is larger than the average family in the city. In urban areas, the average family is a man, his wife, and one and a half children, whereas in rural areas it is a man, his wife, and three children. When the children of the farmer grow up, unless they leave the district to seek jobs elsewhere, they must be kept by him, and the cost of maintaining them must ultimately be added to the cost of producing wheat, because their labour is used in the working of the farm. Tractors were not used extensively on farms at the time the Gepp Commission made its report. Indeed, the commission reported that it had considered the incidence of power farming, and had found that many farmers had abandoned tractors and gone back to horses. The commission could not say whether it was more advantageous to use tractors or horses. At the present time, however, there is a tremendous demand for tractors, which have revolutionized wheat-growing. We have learned much from the Americans during the war about the mechanization of farming operations. To-day, the farmer realizes that he is “ not in the hunt “ if he has to depend on horses. Because of the vagaries of the weather, it is sometimes necessary that a farmer should work 24 hours a_ day in order to sow his crop or harvest it. This, can be done with tractors, but not with horses. A tractor for use on a single-unit farm may cost £800 or £900, and its use does away with the need for much labour. Thus, unless mixed farming is indulged in, there is little for the members of the farmer’s family to do, and the cost of their upkeep must be added to the cost of the tractor, and so to the cost of producing wheat. We must take into consideration the fact that, unless something can be done in the way of establishing industries in country towns to provide employment for the members of farmers’ families, the young people will either drift to the metropolis and be engulfed there, or their upkeep must become a charge against the products of the land.

In the future, when the demand for wheat lessens, it may be necessary to limit production arbitrarily on certain kinds of land. . Either an arbitrary rule will have to be made under which, say, “ A “ is given a licence to sow 250 acres and “ B “ a licence to sow 200 acres, and the rest of their properties is eliminated, although it might be very good wheat land, or a guaranteed minimum price will have to be fixed at such a rate as to eliminate wheat-growing in all areas where a good crop cannot be harvested under all. conditions. Because of the diversity of methods of production’ and of the great number of unknown factors I do not favour the application of such an arbitrary rule. Again, if a farmer is not properly financed he may be forced out of production, even though he may be farming the best wheat land in the country. Such a farmer would not be able to grow wheat again.

The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) dealt with the aspect of international agreements at some length last night, and, having given the subject some intense study lately I was naturally interested -in what he had to say. International agreements for wheat production and marketing will not be of much use unless all signatory countries are prepared to honour the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement. From time to time over the last 20 or 30 years conferences of representatives of wheat importing and exporting countries have been held in an endeavour to devise a scheme that would obviate violent fluctuations of the price of the world’s principal foodstuff. Through failure in the past to get an international agreement, European economy has been inclined to develop a European hegemony under which the Danubian countries would supply wheat to importing countries .such, as Italy, France and the other western nations of Europe. That move, however, failed because of national disagreements and the consistent endeavour of one- country to obtain an advantage over another.- When war was imminent we had the spectacle of the United Kingdom subsidizing wheatfarmers to produce wheat at a price which could not compete against imports from other countries more suitable to wheat production. France, Germany and Italy did likewise. Then, the great wheat exporting countries of the Balkans were left with surpluses which were debarred from entering other countries because of their fiscal policies. These surpluses were thrown on the markets of the world where they came into competition with wheat exported from Canada, Australia and the United States of America. The industry suffered a great slump, and many wheatfarmers were quickly forced out of production. Countries which had large surpluses of wheat were not in a position to . guard the grain against deterioration, and so huge quantities were wasted. Yet within two years the world was starving for wheat and once again wheat-growers in all countries rushed into production. Unless the wheat exporting countries are prepared, to settle their differences and honour the spirit as well as the letter of international agreements respecting the disposal of the world’s wheat harvests, anything that we do in this country to stabilize the wheat industry will not be effective because we have not the wealth to subsidize exports. If, in order to obtain overseas funds we subsidize our wheat exporters, it would have to be done at the expense of some other section of the community. Australia is in a very favorable position with regard to its wool exports, . because it has almost a world monopoly of wool of the merino type. “Without our merino wools the markets of the world would be short-supplied. But even if we failed to market a bushel of Australian wheat overseas it is more than likely that in normal conditions the world would be well fed. Accordingly, it might not be to our interest to subsidize wheat exports in order to obtain overseas credits. It might be far better to abandon any thought of exporting wheat and to concentrate on growing sufficient for home consumption and stock feed, and to convert much of our wheatlands into cattle or sheep raising areas. The Gepp Commission in its conclusions on the wheat industry said -

The wheat industry has an undoubted claim to assistance from the community. This claim is the greater because -

the industry probably provides more direct employment than any other single industry in Australia;

the industry provides almost 20 per cent, of the freight earnings of, and approximately the same percentage of the total tonnage of goods carried by the railways of the four principal wheat-producing States;

numerous towns and townships throughout the four principal wheat-producing States are dependent in a larger or smaller degree upon the industry for their existence; (<() the industry contributes a substantial proportion of Australian credits overseas; “

13,622,358 of the 23,978,157 tons of cargo shipped from Australian ports in the period from 1927-28 to 1931- 32 was provided by the wheat industry.

– Yes, but to show the mighty wisdom of the honorable gentleman, I point out that my area is only a pocket of Australia. It extends 80 miles from Newcastle to the Liverpool Ranges and is from 30 to 40 miles wide. Did the southern areas of New South Wales have the best season on record? Did the wheat-growers in Australia generally have the best season on record? No !

J3b this very time the greatest wheatproducing State of Australia is undergoing one of its worst droughts. In The Land of Friday, the 12th July, 1946, Mr. H. Bartlett, the cereal specialist of the Department of Agriculture of New South Wales, said that the ^outlook for the. wheat crop in his State has seldom been worse than at present. He said that rain at the end of June benefited about 500,000 acres between Wagga and Albury, and in part of Southern Riverina. Elsewhere, the fate of 4,500,000 acres of crop hung in the balance. We may have another tremendous disaster with the wheat crop. Yet the Minister chooses this time to say to the farmers, “We will not give you what is legally and morally due to you “. I intensely dislike the policy of despair and hopelessness that apparently exists in the minds of the Minister, the Government, and the Government’s advisers with regard to future needs of wheat in the world. When one realizes that in the eight years from 1938 to 1946 the population of India increased by 40,000,000 at the rate of 5,000,000 a year and that it is still rapidly increasing, one can see what vast potentialities exist. One of the great problems that the British have faced in India is that regardless of irrigation measures to stimulate food production the population has kept ahead of the supply of food, so great is the reproductive rate of the Indian peoples. We have heard about the possibility of Russia becoming a great exporter of wheat, but I consider that that is very doubtful. The London

Economist recently, in some excellent articles on Russia, showed that before the war the western provinces were the preeminent grain producers and 40 per cent, of the. acreage sown was on collective farms. The material structure of farming in those areas has collapsed. Although Russia was able to move its secondary industries across the Urals there seems to have been lack of capacity to move the farming industries out of the lands invaded by the Germans. Statistics which are wholly Russian show that 137,000 tractors and 49,000 harvesters were destroyed by the Germans. Only 6,000 tractors .were evacuated in 1941-42 from the western provinces of Russia. The Soviet Government will probably not become an exporter of wheat, except for political reasons. For political reasons it exported wheat to France before the plebiscite on the alteration of the French Constitution and again before the French general elections. It will starve its own people to. export wheat if it deems that the political circumstances justify it. Russia’s internaleconomic conditions are such that if it is to raise the living standards- of its people and not concentrate on war. it must consume more and more wheat within its own boundaries.

There has been a lot of talk about the price of wheat. It has been pointed out that the Government takes no risk whatever, on previous experience and the probabilities of the future, in the price that is offering. After World War I., between 1919-20 and 1929-30, the average price for Australian wheat f.o.r. ports was 6s. lid. a bushel, Hid. more than the price now offered. The .average for tho five-year period was 6s. 6d. a bushel. I believe that if we are to encourage production people must be assured of the full benefit of all that they produce. I quote what Mr. John Teasdale has said, as reported in the West Australian of the 14th June last -

One cannot dogmatize about the world’s wheat position; it does seem that there cannot be any great fall in wheat prices for some years to come. After considering factors tending to raise or lower prices I consider that only extreme pessimists will ‘consider that prices will drop 50 per cent, in the next five years below the present export price of 10s. per bushel f.o.b. ports.

I think that Mr. Teasdale was very wise when he said that.

The bill proposes to restrict production of wheat in Australia in two ways, by limiting ‘ the number of licences to be issued and by regulation of the acreage to be sown as has been said so of ten by the Minister. .

Mr Scully:

– Where is. there any proposal to limit licences or production?

Mr ABBOTT:

– If the Government does not issue more licences, it limits the number of licences and puts a stopper on production. The Minister ought to know better than I and most honorable members what that means, because some of the finest wheat land in Australia is in his electorate, but people cannot get licences to farm it, and therefore cannot produce.

Mr Scully:

– That is absolutely wrong.

Mr ABBOTT:

– It is not wrong, as I shall show the Minister when I come to the undertakings that lie gave at Inverell, but has not honoured. Before the Minister interrupted me I said that restriction of production could take place in two ways, by not increasing the number of licences and by cutting production back by. regulation. I’ remind the Minister of the views expressed by him on the “Wheat Industry (“Way-time Control) Bill, which was brought down in 1940 by the then Minister for Commerce (.Sir Earle Page). His views then could not be improved upon as an expression of opinion on the bill that he has introduced. He said -

One of the most objectionable features of the plan is the proposal to restrict the acreage to be sown next season.

He went, on -

Such a policy is inimical to thu best interests of Australia; and will not stabilize the industry. No other country has adopted a similar plan.

Later he said -

The restrictions being imposed on the “rowers under this plan are intolerable, and should not be accepted. No Soviet legislation more effectively deprives the subject of his liberty than do these regulations, which are an insult to the wheat-grower*.

Then he put forward his own scheme with regard to 3,000 bushels and said -

The result of these regulations will be a calamity to the small growers.

He went on-

No regulation more soul-destroying or more destructive of industrial effort than the regulations now before us was ever issued even in Soviet Russia.

Every word he said then applies equally to this bill. It is utterly destructive of wheat-farming in Australia.

Mr Scully:

– You were the. first one tointroduce compulsory reduction of wheat acreage production.

Mr ABBOTT:

– That remark is aninstance of the. Minister’s usual inaccuracy. There is an old saying that if you are false in one thing you are false in everything. The Minister knows that it is utterly untrue to say that 1 introduced compulsory reduction of production.

Mr Scully:

Mr Scully:

– All those matters received consideration.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I propose now to refer to the position of men who owned land when they joined the forces in 1939. When they were demobilized, they were notgranted a licence to grow wheat. To prove my statements, I quote from a report contained in the Northern Daily Leader of the 8th May last. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture met a deputation of the Land Settlement Subcommitee of the Inverell Branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, which is inhis electorate. The first resolution to which his attention was directed was -

That permanent wheat-farm registrations should be granted to all ex-servicemen wheatgrowers.

The report states -

One case that had come under notice was that of a man who had land at North Star. He had killed the timber, cleared the land, and was about to plant wheat, but enlisted and went overseas. He was now back, but the only permission he could get was to grow wheat for one year; a permanent registration would not be granted. He had arranged to sell the property to a returned ex-serviceman of this war, but the sale was subject to it being a permanently registered wheat farm. As he could not get this registration, the sale could not go on. The only reason why it was not a permanently registered farm, was that the . owner was fighting for his country. If he had stayed at home the farm would have been a registered wheat farm. There were more than 25 similar cases in New South Wales, and the deputation felt that something should be done, and done very promptly, to overcome such injustice. The intending purchaser ‘of a property would have to purchase plant costing over £2,000, as it would be necessary to crop large areas in the North Star district, and no man could entertain the proposition when he could obtain a wheat licence for only oneyear.

The Minister, in replying, said that he was very glad that they had come along to bring these points under notice. When he took over he had to amend the wheat stabilization regulations under the National Security Act to the end of the year so far as the present registration was concerned.Whatever might happen afterwards would be a matter for the party that would be handling it after the elections. He appreciated that anomalies did exist in the present scheme, and he would further amend it so as to give authority to issue licences for at least the duration of the act. Queensland was definitely tied up by that act, but he lifted the restrictions, and told them to go ahead and grow all the wheat they could. Owing to transport difficulties, there was not enough wheat in Queensland to meet requirements, and the more wheat they grew the better it was for the Commonwealth.

In such cases as that mentioned, he wanted them to understand definitely that a wheat licence would be granted immediately. It was the height of stupidity, and absolutely wrong, to refuse licences in such cases.

Yet by interjection a few minutes ago the Minister implied that the Commonwealth had not entered into any agreement with the States for the purpose of ensuring that ex-servicemen shall be granted licences to grow wheat. He misled the deputation, because he did not speak the truth. The cases to’ which the deputation referred are not covered in Commonwealth or State legislation. The report continued-

Another point that he particularly wanted to emphasize was that returned soldiers would definitely be given permanent wheat licences.

The responsibility for issuing the licences lias been transferred from the Commonwealth to the States, but the Minister has not made any binding arrangement for protecting the interests of ex-servicemen who desire to grow wheat. So far as he is concerned, those ex-servicemen simply do not exist. He declared that “there may be room “ in the development of the wheat industry in the future to enable provision to be made for them; but such provision is not made in the Commonwealth or State legislation.

Mr Scully:

– That is not true.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Eight times in his speech the Minister emphasized the necessity to regulate production.- He adopted ;t curious attitude. Early in his secondreading speech, he stated - lt provides growers with a guaranteed minimum price for wheat for five years, and has the machinery to maintain minimum price guarantees as a permanent feature. The effect will he to remove the feature which disturbed the industry most in the past; that is. the i in pact of unduly low prices.

Then he declared -

The States control production, and production must be regulated to the markets avail- ii bie for our wheat.

Production must be regulated according to the markets available for our wheat ! If the markets of the world are heavily supplied with wheat during the five-year period, the farmers, although f.hey are guaranteed a price, are not guaranteed the right to grow so much wheat as they produced in the base period. The whole plan is an attempt to fool wheat-growers. The Government ha3 misled them. Later in his speech, the Minister stated -

Production will be regulated in accordance with the markets available.

Subsequently, he said -

It is not proposed,, nor intended, that returns shall be permanently out of line with the export price, nor that the industry will lie continually subsidized. Two-thirds of our wheat goes onto the export market, and we must compete with’ other countries for our markets.

What a poorly-conceived stabilization scheme ! It does not guarantee that the farmer will get the full advantage of high prices, but he will suffer all the disadvantages of low prices, because the quantity of wheat that he will be licensed to produce will be curtailed. The Minister asserted that the wheat-grower is guaranteed a price of 5s. 2d. a bushel. I remind him that if the quantity that he is permitted to grow is reduced by 10 per cent, or 20 per cent., the effect is . to reduce the price to 4s. 8d. a bushel. In 1940, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture stated in criticism of the Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Bill-

The plan outlined by the Government completely’ disregards the interest of small growers.

Large growers,’ can produce wheat profitably when the price is a little over 2s. per bushel; : the small farmer reaping not more than 400 acres of wheat finds his production costs much higher. The scheme submitted by the Government will strike the death knell of the small growers. The result of these regulations will be a calamity to the small growers.

Every word that the Minister uttered on that occasion applies to this bill. No protection is provided for the small growers. If growers are instructed to reduce their crops by 10 per cent.,’ the small growers will “ get it in the neck “ just as severely as will the large producers. But whereas the large producer’ will be able to bear the blow, the small grower will not. As the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Breen) pointed out, many of the larger growers engage in mixed, farming and have sources of income other than the sale of their wheat. The small wheat-grower depends wholly upon the returns from his harvest. As the report of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry showed, the costs of the small grower are always substantially higher than are the costs of the large grower. In the four principal wheat-producing States in 1935-36, the classification of wheat holdings was - 36,570 produced 3,070 bushels or . less, and 14,955 holdings produced over 3,070 bushels. The 36,570 holdings, which represented 70 per cent, of the total number, produced 47 per cent, of the Australian wheat crop, whilst the remaining 14,955 holdings, which represented 30 per cent, of the total, produced 53 per cent, of the crop. Those are the larger holdings. When we examine the position in. New South Wales,- the figures are even more impressive. According to the New South Wales Official Year-Book for 1938-39, that State, for the ten seasons from 1933-34 . to 1943-44, had an average production of 51,634,000 bushels of wheat, or 32 per cent, of the total Australian harvest. Consequently, New South Wales is an important State in wheat. production. Of the 14,272 hold- ings in that State, 10,484, or 60 per cent, of .the total number, produced 22 per cent, of the wheat, and each of them grew less than 3,000 bushels. The remaining 40 per cent, of the holdings were responsible for 78 per cent, of the wheat grown. The Commonwealth Year-Book for 1940 showed that in 1935-36, 24 per cent, of the wheat-farms had no sheep. They were probably the holdings of the ? mall wheat-growers, who are’ wholly dependent upon the returns from the sale of their grain. The principle of applying ;i. general curtailment of the production of wheat to all farmers is entirely wrong. The previous scheme did not function on that basis. The small wheat-grower should not be compelled to suffer as severe a reduction as the large wheatgrower. As I have shown, the big majority of farmers produce less than 3,070 bushels. In 1940, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture said that the application of the guaranteed price to the first 3,000 bushels, and the spread of prices over the next 2,000 bushels, wouk embrace about 90 per cent, of the wheatgrowers of Australia. Why should the large growers who produce 78 per cent, of the New South Wales harvest, not bear the burden of any reduction of production before any restriction is imposed on small growers? It would have been more acceptable if the Minister had adhered to his previous plan, with some alterations, and been content to withdraw the licensing system, allow the unrestricted production of wheat, and grant a guaranteed price for the first 3,000 bushels of each producer’s harvest.. The adoption of that plan would have obviated the necessity to restrict production. The larger growers would Iia ve curtailed production, -and all the growers would have known ,that They had a haven of shelter from the economic blizzards of the world. If it were necessary to impose a levy in order to preserve that position, a contributory

Ifr. Abbott. charge could, have been imposed on every bushel of wheat produced in Australia, except that intended for human consumption, and all the fanners would have derived the benefit.

Last night, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) pointed out in an admirable speech that under this scheme the wheat-growers stood to lose at least £57,000,000 during the next five years, and that the amount could easily total £70,0005000. Mr. J. S. Teasdale, of Western Australia, has also directed attention to this possibility. With the proposal to regulate production, it is doubtful whether “the Government will over be called upon to assist to finance the scheme. The Government may so regulate and curtail production that it can retain the growers’ money and gradually distribute it until the wheat position has corrected itself.

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– Restriction was a feature of the plan of the Government of which the honorable gentleman was a member.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I arn not saying restriction was or was not a feature of the plan of the previous government. I do not believe in restriction that will affect the small wheat-growers. I believe that the small farmer should be given the benefit of the guaranteed price on the first 3,000 bushels of wheat he produces.

I oppose the bill also because the limits of production are set compulsorily and not by individual action. If the 3,000-bushel quota had ‘been maintained the limitation would have affected the big farmer, but now the burden will be placed upon the small farmer. The honorable member foi’ Forrest (Mr. Lemmon) is interjecting, but he cannot be placed in the category of small farmers.

Mr Lemmon:

– I am a small farmer in Western Australia.

Mr ABBOTT:

– But Western Australia is not the only State to be considered. The farmers of New South Wales produce 32 per cent, of the wheat grown in the Commonwealth and the great majority of. them are-small farmers. The Government’s scheme offers the farmers what will probably he a low price for the next five years, having regard to the state of the wheat market, our experience in i he years following the last war, the serious shortages, in wheat supplies at present, and the demands that are likely to be made by an increasing world population; This scheme will sovietize the industry, as the Minister said of an earlier bill. It will also prevent the development of new wheatgrowing areas, and* it makes no provision for the introduction ‘ of new. farmers. It will tend also to massacre the small farmers, and will result in the betrayal of ex-servicemen who are qualified to settle on the land. The Minister made certain statements to ex-servicemen at Inverell, but these have been dis- honoured in the bill now before us, and in the arrangements that are to be made with the States.

Mr McLEOD:
Wannon

.- For the first time in the history of the wheat industry in Australia we have, in this bill, a stabilization plan which will cover a reasonable period. Under the Government’s proposals the farmers will be assured, for five years at least, of a reasonable guaranteed price for their product. That, has never before been the case. I have listened with interest to the criticisms of the bill by honorable members opposite, particularly those of some eminent lawyers and other professional men; but I have not .been able to decide, from their remarks, where they stand in regard to the stabilization of the industry. It seems to me that they have no policy whatever in that connexion. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said -

We must seek to give a reasonable measure of stability to the whole of what might be described as the average wheat harvest, whether it” be sold in Australia or abroad. Therefore we must be prepared to protect the wheat-grower in respect of npt only that portion of his crop which is sold here but also a reasonable volume of production for export.

That is a delightfully vague statement which does not commit the right honorable gentleman to anything at all, but I pay this tribute to him: unlike his Australian Country party associates he is at least honest. I agree with those who have said that the wheat industry is being regarded as a kind of political football. It is obvious to me that some honorable gentlemen opposite, realizing that we are on the eve of a general election, wish to protect themselves if the tragedy of the return of an anti-Labour government should. happen. It is for that reason that the Leader of the Opposition did not commit himself. He said in effect, “ Let us .pay a reasonable price for a reasonable amount “. The right honorable gentleman at one time appeared to consider 2s. 6d. a ‘bushel a generous payment, so I am unable to guess what he might regard as a reasonable payment. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) has made a very different proposal, ‘but I can see that if the antiLabour parties were returned to power, the Leader of the Opposition, if hebecame Prime Minister, would repudiate the proposals of the honorable member for Indi. I intend to test the sincerity of some honorable gentlemen opposite and, in particular, to expose the duplicity of the honorable member for Indi. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) asked us to forget the past. Of course, some honorable gentlemen opposite desire to forget their past, because it is so black. They have a deplorable record in relation to assistance for the farmers. But when this Government assumed office it- immediately set to work to help al] primary producers.

Mr Bowden:

– Do not .be silly!

Mr McLEOD:

– The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) once posed as a radical, but now he uses his vote, invariably, to help the banks, the big financial institutions, and vested interests generally. Honorable gentlemen opposite are trying to gull the farmers into believing that they would provide a better stabilization scheme than that- outlined in the bill. No doubt the daily prayer of the honorable member for Indi and politicians like him is, “ Please give the wheat-farmers a short memory, and let us publicly forget what we did to them in the past “.

A good many of the remarks that have been made about the wheat farmers by honorable gentlemen opposite in the course of this debate savour of rank hypocrisy. What did the honorable member for Indi do to assist the farmers when he was a member of the previous government? He did nothing. It was only after the Labour Government, came into office that the farmers received substantial help, as, in fact, did all those who were engaged in primary production. The Country party and the party that now calls itself Liberal have an extremely unsavoury record in this connexion, as an examination qf the pages of Hansard would show. When the people saw the error of their ways and returned the Labour party to power in the National Parliament the lot of the primary producers improved immediately. Honorable members opposite said that they would do things, but never did them. The Labour party said it would help the farmers and it has helped them. It will be a disaster for the wheatgrowers if, by any mischance, this Government does not retain office after the elections. I intend to remind honorable members of a certain statement of Mr. G. C. Marshman, a practical wheatgrower. He has stated in a section of thi! press ‘.hut he met the honorable member for Indi .in the corridor of this House while that honorable gentleman was a member of the Government.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Is Mr. Marshman on the pay-roll?

Mr McLEOD:

– He is not on the payroll of the wheat merchants. He is a practical wheat-grower. It will be known to those who are well informed on this subject that the Country party, when it was supporting the previous government, acquiesced in the appointment of seven merchants or their satellites to the Australian Wheat Board.

Mr Bowden:

– Out of how many members ?

Mr McLEOD:

– Out of nine. One of the others was appointed to represent the organized wheatgrowers and the second to represent the unorganized wheat-growers. Subsequently, when the change of government occurred, the outlook of primary producers, particularly the wheat-growers, improved immediately. Mr. Marshman was a member of the deputation of wheat-growers which visited Canberra for the purpose of seeking an increase of the price of wheat by 3d. a hi vh el. but the honorable member for

Indi said that he would not embarrass the Government by asking for the increase at that time. I quote the following statement by Mr. Marshman from the Westralian Wheatgrower : -

Whilst on this visit wo met Mr. McEwen in the corridors of Parliament House and made known to him the purpose of our deputation, and requested his support. The reply we received was - “ I refuse to embarrass the Government on such a matter at this time “.

The honorable member for Indi said that he would not embarrass the Government because the, country was at war; but shortly afterwards, when the Labour Government was in office, Japan entered the war. Did the Labour Government* thereupon refuse to do anything more to help primary producers? We know very well that it did not. It provided a better price for wheat and it also introduced substantial subsidies, including a subsidy for superphosphate. The previous government budgeted for a war expenditure of ?100,000,000, but this Government has had to budget for as much as ?350,000,000 under that heading. Yet one of its earliest enactments provided a guaranteed price of 4s. for wheat at sidings. For the first time in their history, the Australian wheatgrowers received cash at sidings for their product.’ The Government also had to make provision for the payment of subsidies on superphosphate, as well as on other necessaries such as bags and tractor parts. I continue the quotation from The Westralian Wheatgrower -

Mr. McEwen did not send a reply . .’ . ami angrily remarked that he resented such an approach to him and would ignore the circular and the body that sent it. Now he poses as the growers’ champion.

Mr. Marshman went on to say ;

T find it particularly difficult to reconcile the mon that were and the men that are, and would warn growers to be most cautious about taking action to. destroy a subsistence whilst they go out to chase a shadow. 1 stress what follows. Mr. Marshman has had a good deal of experience of politicians of the calibre of the honorable member for Indi. Referring to that honorable gentleman, he said - in reply to a question ait the Country party conference as to whether there was a limit to the quantity of wheat on which the Federal Country party would guarantee 5s. 2d. a bushel, Mr. McEwen replied : “ No Treasury “ould sign a- blank cheque”.

That proves that the present opposition to the stabilization scheme proposed by the Government is purely political humbug. It is all very well to say, “Next year we will get a good price”. As a primary producer, I have experienced the greatest hardship. After World War I., inflated land values, and the inflated prices of all commodities which the primary producer needs, ruined me. We want the wheat industry to have a stabilized price, not necessarily a high price.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– Then why are the wheat-growers opposing this scheme?

Mr McLEOD:

– The honorable member for Wimmera knows nothing about the wheat industry. For a long time he has been associated with dealers and agents. How he was returned as the representative of wheat-growers puzzles inn.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– I have been a wheatgrower and have never been a dealer.

Mr McLEOD:

– The honorable member has been associated with auctioneers and land “ sharks “. Such interests naturally do not care for stability, but prefer booms and slumps. That is how they make large incomes. They are fearful lest the farmer may get out of their clutches. This scheme has been’ brought down by the Government at the request of organizations of wheat-growers. If the honorable member for Wimmera were a wheat-grower whose future, and that of his sons, depended on what he produced, would he take all that can be obtained from present-day prices or contribute a portion of it to a fund? Undoubtedly, he would say, “We will build up a fund”. The wheat-farmer has sufficient brains to realize that, with the price of wheat at 10s. a bushel, there will be such productive activity in Europe that, by mechanized methods, a large surplus will be produced in the next two years, and the possibility is not remote that not a bushel of wheat will lie wanted from Australia. A glut can be caused as quickly as a surplus. The wheat-growers know that. When there is a glut Australia will be the first country to feel the effects of it. Therefore, the wheat-growers want security for the next five years. The Government is accepting a- risk in this matter. If the price of wheat falls below 5s. 2d. a bushel in the next five years, the Government will have to make good the deficiency. I wonder whether any merchant would take a similar risk. Would firms such as Bungie’s, Darlings, and Dreyfus give similar conditions to the farmers? Would the honorable member for Indi guarantee to pay for the wheat grown by the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Lemmon) on similar terms? This scheme will be reviewed during its currency. The value of it lies in the fact that for five years the wheat-growers will know where they stand. The Government is sympathetic to all ;primary producers, and has given them a far better deal than they received from anti-Labour governments. When honorable members opposite had the opportunity to assist the primary producers, particularly the wheat-growers, they did nothing.’ They are making this a political issue. The honorable member for Indi has cited figures supplied by a man who, I understand, has made quite a lot of money out of speculations in wheat. Naturally, that gentleman does not want the industry to be stabilized; Certain interests are opposed to the stabilization of any industry. Had there been a stabilization scheme, based on similar principles, in the years from 1919-20 to 193S-39, what would have been the value of it to the wheat industry? The late Mr. J. E. Maycock, who, during his lifetime, was the secretary of the South Australian Wheat Growers Association, a member of the council of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, and a member of the Australian Wheat Board, and whose death represented a great loss to the wheat industry, prepared a table which was published in *The South Australian Wheat-grower of the 22nd February last. It snowed that the total benefits of a stabilization plan to the farmers, had one been in operation for the twenty years from 1919 to 1939,

EXPLANATION OF TABLE.

Column 1 shows the years in which the respective crops were grown.

Column 2 shows the total amount of crop grown, including wheat retained on farms.

Column 3 shows the amount of wheat estimated to be retained on farms to cover seed, feed, &c. The amount is estimated at approximately 20,000,000 bushels, and any odd figures over millions are shown in this column in order to leave even millions” in Column 4.

Column 4 is the amount of wheat actually sold in each year.

Column 5 shows the average open market price f.o.r. in - each season.

Column 0 shows the total amount received by farmers in each season, with all wheat sold ;it the open market price shown in Column 5.

Column 7 is the first column commencing to show what would have been received if the present Wheat Stabilization proposals had been in operation. This column assesses the amount used annually for local flour mid miscellaneous purposes at 37,000,000 bushels, being :i 1,500,000 bushels for local flour and 5,500,000 bushels for feed and miscellaneous purposes. This amount of wheat would always bo sold at 5s. 2d. per bushel.

Column 8 shows the value of the balance of the crop sold for export at open market price when the price exceeded the stabilized floor price of 5s. 2d.

When the open market price was less than the stabilized floor price of 5s. 2d., the price’ is taken as 5s. 2d., because this is what the fanner would actually receive miller the Stabilization Plan.

Column !) shows the total amount which would have been received by farmers in each year under stabilization and is the total of Columns 7 and 8.

Column 10 shows the average price per bushel for each season when the value of the crop exceeded 5s. 2d. per bushel.

Column 11 shows the stabilized price, being the amount received by the farmer, namely, fis. 2d. per bushel and 40 per cent, of any excess over 5s. 2d.

Column 12 shows the amount per bushel placed in the stabilization fund each year, being 00 per cent, of any excess over 5s. .2d. per bushel.

Column 13 shows the total amount placed in the stabilization fund each year.

VALUE 01’ THE WHEAT B.ETURN TABLE.

The Wheat Table printed on the opposite page i.a not printed to suggest that because farmers would have shown a profit of over £1113.000,000 if the present stabilization plan had been in operation for the entire period between the two Great Wars, they are bound to make the same profit in the next 20 years. It is printed with the express purpose of showing farmers what would have happened, and they must examine it and form their own conclusions as to whether future benefits are likely to be greater or smaller.

Some person will say that the stabilization floor price would have been less than 5s. 2d. for the period, hut in 1919-20 and in 1920-21 the f.o.r. price of wheat, which was based on London parity, was 8s. 10-id. and 8s. 6d. per bushel, bagged basis, respectively, and farmers were receiving this for every bushel they sold, as there was no Flour Tax legislation in existence.

If is worthy of note that these prices were received under the old Compulsory Pool, and that in 1921-22, the first year of the open market, the price fell to 5s; 5)d. I do not suggest that the open market was the cause of this drop, but it is a point worth remembering.

If wheat were sold to-day under the same conditions as in those years,- viz., London parity with Canadian, the price would be 7s. Did., bagged basis, f.o.b. Australia, and those farmers’ friends, who do not farm themselves, would have had a better case for opposing stabilization at 5s. 2d. in 1919 to 1921 Mian they have to-day.

It will be noticed that during the twenty years the highest price is 8s. 10id. There were nine years over 5s., three more over 4s., and sight lower than this. Let the farmer consider after studying the information set out in this paper, if better prices than these are likely to operate in the next twenty years.

Critics will say the plan is not for twenty years. Unfortunately, it is not, but it is for five, maybe for six, and will be continued, and the decision the farmers have to make to-day is whether they will have it or not, and most “f them are going to reply with a very definite “ Yes “.

The figures in Columns 2 and 5, which are the basis of the table are supplied by the Government Statistician.

In Column 2 it is estimated that approximately 20,000,000 bushels is retained on farms. This is arrived at by allowing 13,000,00(1 bushels for seed and 7,000,000 bushels retained for feed and other purposes. It is possible that many farmers will consider 20,000,000 too high a figure. If this is so, it would mean that there would be several million bushels more in each year to be sold, and this would increase the benefit of the Stabilization Plan to the farmer and its cost to the Government.

In Column 7, 37,000,000 bushels per annum is allowed for flour and ‘miscellaneous purposes, being an allowance of 31,500,000 bushels for local flour and 5,500,000 bushels for miscellaneous purposes. This is probably a fair assessment of the position in the period covered by the table, and the purpose of sotting up the table is to show what would have actually happened in that period.

However, in applying the table to the future, any farmer may make his own estimate of the a mount likely to be sold for feed, which will depend on the encouragement and development or at least on the retention of our market for pig and poultry products.

Twenty-five million bushels is estimated to be used for feed in the current year, but this is only an estimate; it is not a fact.

In the coining 20 years we hope to see this amount exceeded, but many persons have a great fear that it is going to be very difficult to hold our market for pig and poultry products at its present level.

If any farmer considers that more should he allowed for feed in the future, he must increase the amount sold at 5s. 2d. in those years in which the open market price exceeded5s. 2d., thus reducing the return to farmers in those years and reducing the benefit of the Stabilization Plan to farmers and its cost to the Government.

The total result of the table showing the actual facts of the position for 20 years from war to war is as follows: -

In selecting a period to test the stabilization proposals, it was desired to take a period which would be fair, and therefore instead of selecting any given number of years, which might have been claimed to either favour or to discount the plan, the whole period from the end of World War No. 1 to the commencement of the World War No. 2 was taken.

It is a strange thing that whenever any proposal is put forward which would benefit farmers, it is always opposed by a number of persons who loudly protest that they desire to protect the farmers.

One person inquired who supplied the funds. If we base our estimate of the future on our experience of the past, our table shows that the Government takes the risk of providing £ 108,000,000 and the farmers £21,927,583.

How any farmers’ friend can describe the plan as” an attempt by the Government to deprive the farmer of a portion of the market value of his production,” or describe it as “ picking the growers’ pockets,” passes my comprehension.

These statements certainly presume that farmers are lacking in intelligence, and are. therefore an insult.

It has also been said that the Government is not taking any risks. Farmers must form their own conclusions by studying the table relating to the past and forming their own estimates of the future.

Honorable members opposite have never had the desire to stabilizeindustries. Many wheat-growers believe that when this bill has been passed by this House and the Senate, it will become law automatically. I stress that this is only the first step. Although the bill may be passed by the National Parliament, it will not become the law of the land unless complementary legislation is passed by the States. Although the Premiers of the States agreed to this scheme, it will still have to run the gauntlet of the last bastions of vested interests, the great stronghold of reaction, the legislative councils of the various States, the majority of whose members represent those who live on the toil of others and exploit themasses. All the planning of the wheat-growers, and all the efforts of their elected representatives in this National Parliament, will count for naught unless the scheme is approved by the Legislative Council of Victoria. Where do honorable members opposite stand? In those chambers they have confederates through whose instrumentality they can destroy this plan. I challenge them to declare themselves. They must know what they intend to do. I want to make it clear and definite that if the scheme is rejected by a State legislative council, open market conditions will prevail. Why do not honorable members opposite say without equivocation, “ We are going to defeat this scheme in the State upper houses “? The wheatgrowers should be alert to this danger. We work under a dual system of government, and the final decision in the matter will rest with those who live on the toil of others. They, of course, will be against it.

Mr Bowden:

– The honorable gentleman is inviting them to turn it down.

Mr McLEOD:

– They are the confederates of honorable members opposite, who ought to tell them to put the measure through. I am very sorry that the honorable member for Wimmera, an electorate that has great traditions associated with the wheat-growing industry, should be opposing a plan which is designed to benefit the industry. When he travels about his electorate he will realize that the hard-working wheatgrowers are wholly in favour of stabilization, which they know to be their only hope. They do not want to go back to the old system of the open market, under which according to Mr. Dunstan, 2,000 farmers went off the land. Governments which were supported -by honorable members opposite gave the farmers a debt adjustment scheme, but they never brought in a wheat stabilization plan because that would have been against the interests of the merchants and the great combines. The purpose of this Government is to ensure that all sections of the primary producers shall obtain a fair return for their work. This has already been achieved for the dairy-farmers.” Honorable members- opposite favour a return to open marketing. The farmers might prosper under such a system for this year, and. perhaps next, but eventually, when prices fell, they would be worse off than ever. ‘ We are told that prices would be regulated by the law of supply and demand, but the farmers have already been the victims of that law, and they are now demanding a more stable system. The Labour Government has proved that it can give stability to the industry, and honorable members opposite are jealous of its record. It is wrong for them to say that the Government is robbing the farmers. Under this arrangement, the farmers will get back every penny that they put into the fund, - the money, in the meantime, being invested in interest-bearing securities. I hope that prices will keep up, but, if they fall below a certain figure, the Government, under the plan, will be obliged to subsidize the wheat-growers. Honorable members opposite would destroy the stabilization plan for which the’ farmers have fought for years. Those who insist upon receiving 10s. a bushel now for their wheat, with no home-consumption price, will come to the Government, and demand a home consumption price when world parity prices fall. They should realize that they cannot have it both ways. As I have said,, the fate of the scheme does not depend upon what is done in this Parliament, but upon what is done in State parliaments by the reactionary confederates of honorable members opposite.

Mr Bowden:

– Why not put them out of Parliament? .

Mr McLEOD:

– The franchise for the legislative councils is such that it is impossible to dislodge the reactionaries. Only those who own property of a certain value are permitted to vote.

When it was proposed that all returned soldiers who had fought for their country should be given a vote the friends of honorable members opposite voted against the proposal. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) ii a returned soldier, and he talks a great deal about what he will do for the servicemen. My opinion is that he will do for them just about as much as he has done for the wheat-farmers, and that is nothing at all. When they were down, he was ready to dump them. The Labour party is the only one that has. ever honoured the promises made to the farmers and provided stable marketing conditions. I am not surprised that the honorable member did not wish his past to be recalled, but in this instance it was necessary to do so. He and others like him have not altered their outlook. The ‘honorable member for Indi is a typical example of a man whose- opinions have undergone no change. In 1940, he was asked by the wheat-growers of the Goulburn Valley to ‘support their claim for a minimum price of 2s. 6d. a bushel,” but he refused. For the benefit of the honorable member for Wimmera, who has so much to say, I quote the following: -

On the 21st November, 1939, an amendment was moved to guarantee the wheat grower 3s. 6d. a bushel f.o.h. on the wheat acquired in the No. 2 pool. When Labour attempted to have a vote taken to allow Parliament to give a decision on this amendment, all the Country party members voted with the United Australia party members, and prevented Parliament from expressing its views in the matter. The Sydney Morning Herald, commenting on the Country party attitude in this regard, said “ Gradually it began to dawn on the party that they were. ‘on the spot’. They realized that, they must either support the motion or leave themselves open to the accusation that all their talking for the farmers was mere sham-fighting ‘. “Members cast round for a way out. They found it by persuading the Government to shelve’ the .debate, and breathed a sigh’ of relief.”

That is the record of the men who now profess to be so generous, but we should compare their present protestations withtheir miserable attitude in the past. As for the amendment moved by the honorable member for Indi, I warn the growers, “Beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts ‘’. On a previous occasion, the honorable member for Darling

Downs (Mr. Fadden) got into trouble with.the Leader of the Opposition regarding proposals for the stabilization of primary industry, and the Leader of the Opposition had to repudiate what the Leader of the Country party had said. In the. same way, two distinct policies for wheat stabilization are now being advanced by the Opposition, but neither will ever be applied.

On the established facts, the growers should have no difficulty in deciding that they had been betrayed by the anti-Labour parties ; and on the same facts, they should have no difficulty in recognizing that the Labour Government has lifted their industry out of the unfortunate position in which it was placed by previous governments. Our purpose is to safeguard the future of the industry. It is easy to recognize the attempts of honorable members opposite and the interests they represent to undermine the Government’s scheme, but I ask the growers to remember the record of those who now profess to be their friends. The growers received a raw deal from anti-Labour governments. There should have been a stabilization plan in operation at the end of the last war, and if there had been there would have been no insolvency amongst the fanners, and no need for debt adjustment. When a previous Labour Government endeavoured to have legislation passed providing for a guaranteed price for wheat, the proposal was defeated by the enemies of the Government in the Senate; . yet to-day, honorable members opposite persist in saying that, the Scullin- Government promised the farmers 4s. for their wheat, but failed to honour its promise. I have no doubt that if the present stabilization proposal is defeated by the confederates in State parliaments of honorable members opposite, we shall be told once more that a Labour government failed to honour its -promises. I congratulate the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture upon the way he has co-operated with the organizations of the wheat-growers. He did not get angry with them, as did the honorable member for Indi when the growers asked for a modest increase of 3d. a bushel. The Minister’s door has always been open to the growers, and now an effective stabilization plan has been introduced. I congratulate the Government upon having brought down, for thefirst time in the history of Australia, a stabilization scheme for the benefit of thewheat industry.

Naturally, I have met some farmers who are opposed to the measure, but I am happy to say that the huge majority of wheat-growers in my division are whole-heartedly behind it. Moreover, the growers generally are doubtful about some persons who are now galavanting around South Australia in a frantic endeavour to throw cold water on this proposition, and are curious as to who is paying the expenses of these paid agents.

For consistent inconsistencies I know of nothing worse than the statements of some honorable gentlemen opposite about the wheat industry. It was only as the result of continual pressure by the Labour party that the Menzies Government brought down its scheme to pay wheatgrowers 3s. l0d. a bushel f.o.b., which, after the deduction of expenses for freight, storage, handling, and excess wheat, would return the growers only about 2s.10d. a bushel. The Leader of the Opposition and the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), and other honorable members opposite stated that that scheme would stabilize the wheat industry, but I maintain that it would not cover cost of production in all cases. It was condemned by the majority of wheatgrowers. Particular interest and significance attach to the publicly expressed views of both the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), as Prime Minister, and Senator McLeay, its Leader of the Senate, in announcing the amount of the financial assistanceto be made available for the purpose of that scheme. They said -

We are now able to announce that we have arranged, not only that the amount of the advances shall be increased to 2s.10d. a bushel for bagged wheat, less rail freight, and 2s.81/2d. a bushel for bulk wheat, less rail freight, thus giving an average return of 2s. 6d. a bushel onbagged wheat at the country siding, but also that the advance shall be paid in one amount as soonas practicable after delivery of the wheat. We earnestly say that these financial proposals represent, . not only a fair but a generous approach to the problem by the Government.

Later, the then Prime Minister made a statement of particular interest to growers at that time in his comment on the finance to be provided for No. 1 and No. 2 pools. He said -

We cannot continue to provide large sum of public money to support the wheat-growers while they go on producing unsellable grain - such a procedure would he demoralizing and unsound.

Yet, in the light of these statements, we find him condemning the present proposals of the Government.

I cannot allow the Opposition’s arguments to go unchallenged in the light of the following figures showing the movement of the incomes of primary producers between the financial years 1939-40 and 1943-44:-

page 2649

QUESTION

INCOME TAX - PRIMARY PRODUCERS

The number of primary producers with actual incomes in excess of £250 per annum has increased between the financial years 1939-40 and 1943-44 from 53,400 to 117,500, or approximately 120 per cent.

It appears that the Opposition is interested only in the returns of the big producers, and I desire to submit figures correctly compiled by probably the largest primary producer, if not the largest, in South Australia. The correctness of these figures I am prepared to accept. They cover a period from the 1922-23 to the 1942-43 harvests - that is, 21 years - and show that had the firm received 5s. 2d. a bushel - the guaranteed floor price, equal to 4s. 6id. a. bushel at its - railway . sidings - its return would have been £17,353 17s. 3d., less the amount the firm would have contributed to the fund, £2,615 5s. 5d. This proves that the firm would “have benefited by £14,738 lis. lOd. over the period of 21 years. I say unhesitatingly that to the operators of this firm and all others similarly placed this would have meant the difference between, on the one hand, fear of the loss of the farm and a general closure, and on the other hand, prosperity and contentment. With the consent of honorable members, I shall incorporate in Hansard the following schedule : -

It has never generally been admitted that South Australian producers have been placed in the unenviable position of hav ing to accept, year in and year out, 3d. a bushel less for their wheat than growers in New South WaleS and Victoria receive.

I point out, in reference to the schedule of the producer in South Australia, that Mr. Chapman has costed 16 of the 21 years, and the average cost per bushel has been 4s. 0¼d. and the average price, including bounties, has been 4s. 0¾d. The old bogy of the purchasing value of money has been raised against the plan. It is a remarkable fact that in. those sixteen years of costing, the average per acre for three years, well spaced, . was 12 bushels. Thus, the 1922-23 season averaged 12.06 bushels per acre, and the cost to produce was 4s. 9.22d. a bushel. The 1926-27 season averaged 12 bushels, and the cost of production was os. 2.64d. a bushel. The 1944-45 season averaged 12 bushels, and the cost was 4s. 7.8d. a bushel. This conveys to me that with modern methods and reduced interest charges, with price control and .even higher labour costs, the firm can produce a bushel of wheat in the 1.944-45 season at a cost slightly lower than twenty years ago.

Some farmers resent the 1945-46 crop being incorporated in the plan. An; investigation of this aspect from a taxation point of view is interesting, particularly in the light of the figures that I have read to-night. These show that primary producers’ incomes of -£1,000 a year have increased between the years 1939-40 and 1943-44 by” 350 per cent. Admittedly, all were not wheat-growers. However, assuming that a wheat-grower has an assessable . income of £1,000 from all sources of farm revenue, that he produces 5,000 bushels of wheat and receives ls. a bushel more by the exclusion of the 1945-46 crop, he will then have raised his assessable income to £1,250. That increase will raise his assessable tax by approximately £125 - a gift to the Treasury of 6d. a bushel. If the money is placed in the 50 per cent, retention fund, he is actually contributing only 6d. a bushel to ensure a guaranteed minimum price of os. 2d. f.o.r. bagged basis for five years, with the right of review in three years, and with no downward alteration of the 5s. 2d. in the review.

Wheat merchants are said to be desperately anxious to re-enter the field of competition. On whose behalf are they so genuinely interested? Is it for themselves, after having had their “activities suppressed for some years, or is it with a desire to assist the primary producers? 1 am most definitely of the opinion that their interest is purely selfish. When one takes into consideration their huge office rents, staff salaries, telegram costs, rents for the stacking sites, and their equipment - and naturally they would have to buy much new equipment for the season - can the Opposition explain how the merchants would operate fairly to the producers and at the same time not compensate themselves for the huge extra overhead, working expenses, and purchase of material ? This amendment is merely a political move by the Opposition to help the merchants so that they will have the right to operate for this season. Then, should the Government be defeated - that is . not likely to occur - the Opposition will again allow the merchants to take command of the wheat industry. Chaos would then prevail! Insolvencies would again mount up. During seven years in South Australia when the anti-Labour Government was in power, we had 2,060 farm insolvencies in that State alone.

I- can imagine how happy the merchants such as Bunge .(Australia) Proprietary Limited and Louis Dreyfus and Company would be to take command of the grain industry in the Commonwealth to-day. However, I am perfectly satisfied that this Government will still be in office after the general elections.

This measure will give to the exserviceman the opportunity to enter into the wheat-growing industry -with a definite basis of security. He will know his guaranteed minimum price. He will no longer be the political tool of politicians and governments. He will rest with a sense of security, and a knowledge that his only danger will be from drought.

I am confident that farmers will not overlook the fact that the Chifley Government had made this plan available to the Australian Wheat Growers Federation for the future security of the wheat industry. No previous government ever made the same sane, practical attempt.

The support of the wheat-growers will ensure the return of the present Government.

Every effort will be made to reduce the costs of production in the wheat industry. The Parliament has a duty to the industry, and the nation itself, to pass this legislation to provide for guaranteed prices to the wheat-growers in. the future. The long-term wheat stabilization plan not only gives security to the farmer with regard to his financial future, hut also will help to stabilize land values, and thus obviate inflationary trends such as those which occurred after he last war, when some farmers unfortunately paid up to £30 an acre for land on which to grow wheat. Under this plan, that will never occur. At the same time, an economic depression will never again affect land values. The scheme will have a stabilizing influence on the economic security of the man on the land, and from that point of view, the bill should be passed.

I commend the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture for the outstanding interest that he has shown in and the kindly consideration that he has extended to the producers since he has been in office. I express to him my personal- appreciation, and gratitude, because whenever I have approached him on behalf of the producers, he has given ro the proposal a sympathetic hearing ;ind consideration. I support the bill.

Mr MCDONALD:
Corangamite

Mr RANKIN:

– That interjection is characteristic of the honorable member. You, Mr. Speaker, and the House know that the wheat-growers have not had a fair deal. Various industries have been bolstered up during the war at the expense of the wheat industry, and the wheat-growers made no fuss over that. However, now that the war is over, they expect theGovernment to give them a fair deal. If they are given an opportunity they will very soon rehabilitate themselves, and will not ask for help from this or any other government. In particular, they demand that the 1945- 46 crop shall not be included in the stabilization scheme. It was a small crop, of which about 50 per cent, will be exported, and the Government proposes to take from the growers a large proportion of the return which they should receive on exported wheat, and to use it for the benefit of its stabilization plan, although individual growers may never participate in the benefit of the plan. A farmer may sell his property, perhaps for health reasons, or he may hand it over to his son on his return from the war. If, for any reason, he leaves the industry he will not be recouped for any of the money he put into the pool. If the plan is applied to the 1945-46 crop the direct financial loss to growers will be as follows : -

The big growers in the Riverina, in the north-west and north-east of Victoria, and in SouthAustralia and Western Australia, who produce up to 10,000 bushels of wheat, will be deprived of more than £500 under the Government’s plan, and that at a time when they are in urgent need of the money. With it they could repair fences and buildings and buy new machinery. During the war it was practically impossible to obtain wire. Posts, which used to cost £4 10s. a hundred, are now £12 10s., and machinery has been practically unprocurable. A harvester which would have cost £80 before 1939 now costs £200. In spite of the Government subsidy the cost of fertilizer has increased by 25 per cent., whilst its quality has deteriorated. Instead of taking from the farmers their just returns, the Government should encourage them to produce more, because never at any time was the need for production greater in the interest of Australia and of the Empire, and of the starving peoples of the world. The wheat-growers have struggled through years of drought and semidrought, and have carried on while their sons were away serving in the armed forces. They have put up with shortage of labour, shortage of fertilizers and shortage of machinery; yet the Government is now proposing to take from them the reward of their industry. The wheatgrowing industry is the second largest in Australia, and the economic welfare of the nation is bound up with it. It will be greatly to the discredit of the Government if it refuses to give to the growers a fair. deal.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- As the last speaker in the debate from this side of the House, I reiterate the question to which the farmers will demand an answer, if not in this House, then on the hustings during the forthcoming elections - why does the Government propose to include the 1945-46 wheat crop in its stabilization scheme for 1946-47 onwards? Why is it proposed to keep from the growers £10,000,000 which ought to be in their pockets now? The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) evaded the question. He spoke on every aspect of the matter except that. He refused to explain why the Government was stealing the proceeds of the 1945-46 crop from the growers. In a few weeks, Government supporters will go out and tell the people the story which they have told so often here. They will recount the evils of twenty years ago. They will say what the Bruce-Page Government did not do, what the Lyons Government might have done, and what the Scullin Government attempted to do. They will tell the people everything except what the unfortunate growers really want to know, namely, why the Government is taking from them a large proportion of the proceeds of their 1945-46 crop. The growers do not want to know what happened during the “last war. They do not want to know what happened ten years ago, or even what happened during this war. The question they are asking themselves, and which they will also ask Government representatives, is “What about my bank account to-day?” There is about £10,000,000 involved in this steal - no other word can describe it.

Mr Scully:

– -The honorable member should keep to bananas1 - he knows more about them.

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– I cannot prove it, and 1. do not charge the Minister, but I do say that it is a fact.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Barnard

– Order !

Mr SCULLY:

– It is a contemptible thing for an honorable member to use the privileges of the Parliament to make innuendos and insinuations against the integrity of honest men like Mr. Cullen and the other men who are doing a great job on behalf of Australia. But I will not be led astray by the interjections of the honorable member for Indi. I do not consider that most of the other points made by honorable gentlemen opposite warrant a reply.

One of the principal criticisms directed against the bill was the inclusion of the 1945-46 pool in the stabilization plan. Honorable members know perfectly well that in order to obtain an effective stabilization, we must begin the scheme when prices are high. No one can forecast accurately how Jong the present high prices will continue. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who, in my opinion, is a greater authority on the wheat industry than is any other member of the Opposition, warned us that wheat prices on the world market might fall rapidly. In a very effective speech, he emphasized that European countries, which had. been devastated during the war, would rapidly redevelop their agriculture. Supporting his statements ‘ are the views of the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Pool, Mr. McIver, who warned the wheatgrowers of that Dominion not to plant extravagantly large acreages this year.

He advised- them to sow the coarser grains. The Canadian Wheat Pool could not guarantee how long the present inflated prices of wheat would continue. The principal official of Unrra, Mr. Jackson, who recently returned to Australia, considered that Europe ‘and North Africa would rapidly resume the production of grain. Statements that high prices will continue indefinitely are mere guesswork, and every wheat-growers’ organization throughout Australia is anxious that the wheat stabilization plan shall be introduced immediately.

References have been made in this debate to “the decisions of the conference of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation in Perth recently. Members of the Australian Country party, who are making a political football of the wheat stabilization plan, heralded those decisions as marking the doom of the Government’s scheme. The president and: secretary of the federation invited me to meet them in conference in Sydney, and I agreed to do so. With the exception of two men, only one of whom was a Western Australian, those present at that conference supported the present stabilization proposals. Furthermore, when I promised them that I would .recommend to Cabinet the appointment of a commission to inquire into costs in the wheat industry and that a representative of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation would be appointed to it, they seemed perfectly satisfied, and supported the plan m toto. One of the gentlemen who attended the conference was Mr. Ernie Field, who cannot be described as a supporter of the Labour party. He is probably the oldest member of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales, and is also a member of the Australian Wheat Board. Appointed to the board by the previous Government, he was re-elected to the position by the wheat-growers of New South Wales. He publicly supported the wheat stabilization plan, in its’ entirety, and described it as the greatest plan that has ever been or is likely to be submitted to the wheatgrowers of Australia. He advised farmers to “ grasp the plan with both hands, because it means security for an indefinite period”. Never before have wheat-growers enjoyed that degree of security.

A few months ago, I received an invitation to attend the annual conference of the Wheat-growers Union of New South Wales. For many years, I have been in the public life of the Commonwealth and New South Wales, and I say without fear of contradiction that that assembly was the most representative gathering of primary producers that I had ever attended. I was privileged for a while to listen to the discussions. I exercised no particular influence on the decisions, because the day before I attended the conference, members had unanimously agreed to. a resolution approving the wheat stabilization plan.In my presence, the delegates discussed this all-important subject, namely, the inclusion inthe stabilization scheme of the 1945-46 crop.The outstanding feature of the debate was that the organizations representing the largest growers of wheat last year, namely, those in the northern, north-western and central western parts of New South Wales, who would be the largest contributors to the stabilization fund, were unanimously in favour of the inclusion in the scheme of the 1945-46 pool.. That provides an effective answer to the objections raised by the honorable member for Richmond.

Some honorable members opposite have condemned the quota plan, or “Scully plan as it has been termed. The honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Adermann) became “hot under the collar” when be referred to it as the “iniquitous Scully plan”. This afternoon, however, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) almost embraced me in his enthusiasm for the 3,000 bushel quota, and emphasized its advantages to the economy of the small wheatgrowers. Although both honorable members are members of the Australian Countryparty. they expressed conflicting views regarding theplan. I place on record my hope, that if through circumstances the production of wheat has to berestricted, the 3,000 bushel quotaplan willbe restored. The big wheat-growercancarry oneffectively with areduced acreage,butacurtailment of acreage means disasterto the small grower, who depends wholly on his wheat harvest for his income. When the

Government guaranteed the payment of 4s. a bushel at country sidings on the first 3,000 bushels of every wheat-grower’s crop, the farmer had an assured income of £600 a year.From wheat-growers in many parts of Australia, I have received praise for the quota plan. Even since the formulation of the stabilization plan, I have had definite requests from various centres that I should not depart from the quota plan, because it was. the salvation of the small wheat-grower. If honorable members doubt these statements, they should ask the Rural Bank of New South Wales and country bank managers about the financial position of the small wheat-growers to-day. At one wheat-growers’ conference which I attended, a man with a property near Wagga Wagga or Albury stated publicly that as the result of the quota plan, he was able for the first time to look his creditors in the face. And he was the third generation of a wheat-growing family. With the exception of farmers whose crops have been affected . by droughts, the wheat-growers are in a better financial position to-day than they have ever been before. That is due to the Government’s foresight and courage in introducing the quota plan.

In conclusion, I inform the Opposition that the Government intends to proceed with the bill. It will not accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Indi, or conduct a ballot to obtain the views of wheat-growers regarding the plan. The objective of members of the Opposition is to destroy the efficacy of the bill - a bill which all wheat-growers throughout Australia will applaud. I advise them to return to their respective States and influence members of the Legislative Councils to pass the complementary State legislation, thereby giving to the wheat-growers the security which for so long has been denied to them.

Question put -

That the words proposed to he left out (Mr. McEwen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 41

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Scully) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to the stabilization of the wheat industry.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- Will the Minister tell me which clause of the bill makes it necessary to appropriate revenue? I appreciate that an appropriation of revenue will be necessary in connexion with the Wheat Export Charge Bill, but I cannot see any provision in this measure which needs to be covered by an appropriation under section 56 of the Constitution.

Mr Scully:

– Such an appropriation is necessary for the purposes of clause 31 (5).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation.

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

.- I move -

That the clause be left out and the following clause inserted in lieu thereof: - “2. The several sections of this act shall commence on such dates as are respectively fixed by proclamation.”

The clause provides that the act shall come into operation on the date fixed by proclamation. It will be convenient, however, to proclaim some sections before others. For example, provision will have to be made for the election of a new board, but it will be convenient for the present board to carry on the administration under war-time regulations until the new board can be appointed.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- The fact that the Minister finds it necessary to move this amendment is an indication that, although this plan must have been under consideration for many months before the introduction of this bill, the measure has been submitted to us in an unsatisfactory form. Every one who had given any thought to the subject would have realized that provision would be necessary to meet the circumstances that the Minister has indicated. I wish to know now whether our acceptance of this amendment will preclude any member of the Opposition from moving an amendment later in regard to the date upon which the measure will come into operation?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Riordan).The honorable member may later move an. amendment to the words which the Minister is proposing to insert.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I foreshadow an amendment to provide that the act shall not be proclaimed earlier than the 1st October, 1946.

THE CHAIRMAN. - I shall submit the Minister’s amendment in two parts. I shall first put the question “ That the clause be agreed to “. If the committee negatives the clause I shall put the question, that the proposed new clause be inserted. At that stage, the honorable member for Barker may submit his amendment.

Clause negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Scully) proposed -

That the following new clause 2, be inserted: - “ 2. .That the ‘ several sections of this actshall commence on ‘such dates as are respectively fixed- by proclamation.”

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I intend to submit two amendments to the Minister’s proposed new clause. I first move -

That, the following words be added to the proposed new clause: - “but not earlier than the first day of October, One thousand nine hundred and forty-six.”

I hope that the purpose of the amendment is clear to the Government. Its submission is dictated by the determination of the Opposition’ that this bill shall not become an act and have any force or effect until justice has been done to the wheat-growers in connexion with the 1945-46 crop. It will be of no use for the ‘ Minister for Commerce’ and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) to assure the committee, as I have no doubt he will, that a meeting of members of the Australian Wheat Growers Federaton or of some other body has agreed to the proposed stabilization scheme. This is not a matter which can be settled by any organization on behalf of the wheatgrowers. Each grower is individually the owner of his own wheat. The wheat crop of the 1945-46 season was sown under war conditions and war-time legislation. It was grown, reaped and delivered under war-time legislation. That legislation provided that every . grower must deliver his wheat to the pool, and that it should be acquired by the Commonwealth in the terms of the Constitution, by the process prescribed’” National Security Regulations. Under those constitutional provisions, it is neither just nor meet that the grower should be asked to make’ any con tribution to the Commonwealth. The crop was grown and delivered for war purposes. This legislation should deal with the wheat industry on a peace-time basis. There is no justification whatever for including in” a peacetime stabilization scheme a crop that was grown .under war conditions, restriction.;, and regulations for war purposes. Therefore, the Opposition will be on perfectly fair ground in pressing the amendment.

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

.- I am not prepared to accept the amendment. Its acceptance would upset the whole stabilization scheme. Furthermore, the Government wishes to proceed with the election of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board, and with other steps in the scheme.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- What will be the position of the Government after a grower of wheat has appealed to and obtained a decision from the High Court? I am confident that an appeal will be made to the High Court in New South Wales. I am equal y confident that the High Court will declare that the Commonwealth Government cannot deduct any amount from the receipt? from the 1945-46 crop, and that it must, pay to the growers the full realization… . Would it not be better to provide now for a contingency which must arise, instead pf waiting until the Hgh Court has given its decision, when, if the statement of the Minister be correct, the bill will have to be recast and returned to this Parliament for reconsideration? I cannot understand the attitude of the Ministry on this matter. To my mind, it has neither a legal nor a moral right to take this wheat under the proposed conditions, and place it in the stabilization scheme. This is retrospective legislation of the worst character. If the Government refuses to recognize what is a fair thing, the legislation will be upset in the courts. The Government- has been warned. Should the present Ministry be in office when the legislation is returned to this Parliament for reconsideration, we shall have much to say to it.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

– I recognize that the Minister stated a fact when he said that if the proclamation of the act were deferred until October, 1946, the election of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board, and all associated matters, would be delayed. Ordinarily, that would be a very powerful argument in rebuttal. However, I support the honorable mem-ber for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron),, because his amendment is designed to. take whatever action is open to him to block what’ he, I, and all other honorable members on this side of the chamber regard as an obnoxious legislative proposal. I would support any amendment calculated to prevent or delay the operation of this retrospective legislation. At the most, the acceptance of the amendment would merely have the effect of preventing any action taken under the legislation from becoming operative until there had been an appeal to the people in a few months hence. That, in itself, is sufficient reason for my strong support of the amendment.

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– I welcome the opportunity to support the amendment. I would do anything to hamper the intention of the Govern.ment to bring into this scheme the wheat produced in the 1945-46 crop. That wheat having been acquired under wartime regulations, it cannot justly be included in the scheme. The wheatgrowers were led to believe that they would receive cash for the wheat that . they grew in that year. Many of them entered into financial commitments which must be taken into account, because they have to be met. Believing that the receipts from the 1945-46 crop would become available to them, they purchased different articles which they considered would assist them to continue production. If this legislation be carried, they will be left high and dry.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs Leader of the Australian Country party

– I feel it incumbent on me to protest against the inclusion of the 1945-46 wheat crop in the stabilization scheme. I am sure that honorable members must have been impressed by the logical advocacy of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) during his most eloquent second-reading speech last night. The honorable gentleman is well qualified to give an opinion on the constitutionality of the Government’s action. He pointed out that the Government must give consideration to the claims of the growers, and also stated that equity must be observed in the conditions under which the crop wag acquired, the price received for it, and the general circumstances of the transaction. It is difficult to follow the reasoning of the Government. For the reasons which have been advanced. 1 oppose its action and support the amendment of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron).

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

– It appears to me that the Government has not a furl knowledge of what has happened during the last few years in certain wheat areas. Since I have been a member of this Parliament, I have heard the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) sympathize with the wheat-growers in the northern and southern parts of the Wimmera electorate in their sorry plight. I believe that he would co-operate in giving them a chance to rehabilitate themselves, more particularly at the present time, when it is necessary to increase production in order to help feed the starving millions in Europe. When I passed through the Wimmera electorate after an absence of five years overseas, J. was amazed at the deterioration of houses, fencing and machinery. The wheat-grower has now an opportunity to obtain a reasonable return from the good prices that are prevailing overseas; but this legislation will debar him from- taking advantage of it and thus rehabilitating himself. During the drought, severe dust storms swept through the country. I heard’ recently of men who had had to cease fencing work on which they were engaged, because of a dust storm. When they returned to the scene of their labours, they could not find the wire they had intended to use because it was covered with dust. In some of the country which has produced wheat in the past, the houses are in a deplorable state because of the dust that has banked up against them. The costs of everything which the wheatgrowers require have risen so - greatly that this extra money is urgently needed by them. Perhaps never before in the history of the wheat industry would so little money have been so useful, because it would provide these producers with a slight breathing space, although not nearly adequate, and help to place them on a sound basis. Half a loaf is- better than no bread. Depriving them of the money will not be in the best interests of - the growers individually or of the industry as a whole. I support the amendment.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I support the amendment, particularly for the reason that large areas of wheat lands in Australia are suffering severely from the effects of drought. This applies particularly in the mixed farming areas. It has been calculated by Mr. Bartlett. the agricultural expert, that throughout an area of 4,500,000 acres the wheat crops are in the balance. This applies to some of the areas in the south, whilst in the north-west of New South Wales it is almost certain that the crops will be a complete failure. Therefore, the farmers will need all the money that might be coming to them for their 1945-46 crop in order to recoup their present losses.

Mr LEMMON:
Forrest

.- A lot of humbug has been talked about the 1945-46 crop. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) said that the farmers had entered into certain commitments, and if they were to honour those commitments it was necessary that they should receive the full market price for the 1945-46 crop. The general principles of the proposed stabilization plan were known to the farmers before the last harvest. Therefore, before the harvest . was reaped, the farmers would know that they should not enter into commitments that would leave them in financial difficulties. Moreover, very few farmers were likely to enter into commitments before September last on the basis that they would receive for their wheat 6s. 7d. a bushel f.o.b., or 5s. lOd. at sidings - prices higher than any received during the last twenty years. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) mentioned drought. The farmers who suffered from the effects of drought last vear should be supporting the Government’s stabilization proposal, because those who had a good crop in that season are the very one3 who will be contributing most to the stabilization pool. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr.-

Spender), with all his legal humbug, tried to prove that the Government’s proposals were invalid.. As a lawyer, he should support the sanctity of contracts, and the Government’s stabilization proposals are the outcome of a contract entered into between it and the Australian. Wheat Growers Federation. The agreement of the representatives of the federation is recorded in the minutes of that body. The 1945-46 harvest was included in the scheme because it was agreed to by the representatives of the wheat-growers themselves.

Mr ADERMANN:
Maranoa

– I am sure that the representatives of the wheat-growers in Queensland did not agree to .the proposal to include the 1945-46 crop in the stabilization scheme.. The Queensland Wheat Board, which was elected by the growers, is against tho inclusion of the crop, but the Minister is silent on that point.

Mr Scully:

– That statement is incorrect. The chairman of the Queensland Wheat Board accepted that arrangement at a conference held in this very chamber. It was also accepted by the Minister for Agriculture in Queensland.

Mr ADERMANN:

– A member of th« Queensland Wheat Board told me over the telephone only yesterday that they wanted the 1945-46 crop to be excluded. Not one grower knew, when .he sowed hia wheat that season, that a part of the proceeds of the crop would be diverted as is now proposed. As the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) pointed out, the High Court has ruled that any commodity acquired under the National Security Regulations should bc acquired on reasonable terms. There will certainly be a lot of humbugging if, after the scheme has been put into operation, it is found that the act is invalid. The Queensland wheat-growers need the full return from last year’s crop, because there will be no crop this year owing to the drought.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

– I support the amendment of the honorable member” for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that the commencement date for the operation of the scheme should he advanced. In replying to the secondreading debate, the Minister sounded very convincing, and I have no doubt that he spoke in all sincerity when he recounted the circumstances in which it was decided to include the 1945-46 harvest in the scheme. However, I believe that in a matter of such importance Parliament and the representatives of the industries are entitled to have a second look at the matter. It is well known that at the original conference many of the representatives of the wheat-growers agreed to the present proposal, which then looked very attractive, but they had little time to analyse the situation. Since the conference referred to by the Minister, there has been a strong swing of opinion among representatives of wheat-growers’ organizations. The Minister told us about the conference at Perth in December last, but lie did not tell us about a conference which was held in April, and which reversed the decision reached at the Deceml.*r conference.

Mr Scully:

– Was there not a conference in June which reversed the decision of the conference in .April?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Now we are extracting some real information from the Minister, because from the statement he made earlier one would suppose that one conference made this decision and has stood adamantly by it. The Minister now admits that there has been more than one conference. In view of the injustice likely to be done to a very large section of primary producers we should take a little time at least to examine, not only the justice of this proposal, but also its . constitutional aspect. The Government has been fully warned that those engaged in the industry will not take this proposal lightly,’ but will challenge it on constitutional grounds. Money does not seem to matter much to honorable members opposite. The balancing of the budget is a thing of the past so far as this Government is concerned. Reduction of taxes implies economy of administration; but it is not administrative economy to spend thousands of pounds of the taxpayers’ money in fighting a legal battle which we can avert by taking a little more time to consider the implications of this proposal. A most flagrant injustice is being done to the wheat-growers who are to bc deprived of the benefit they expected to derive from the 1945-46 harvest. If the principle* of retrospective taxation were applied to the war-time earnings of the man on the basic wage he would rend the heavens with his protests. The wheat-grower is in a similar position. Under this proposal he is to be taxed retrospectively. Members of the Opposition, particularly members of the Australian Country party, who. if they are not wheat-growers are primary producers, would be failing in their duty if they did not take strong exception tothis proposal. It is strange that in respect of this vital matter the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Lemmon) is the only honorable member opposite who has spoken on this clause. He is the apologist for the Government. He makes the excuses for the Government. He partnered the Minister in the formulation ofthese proposals. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller), the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Smith), and other honorable members opposite who sit in this chamber as representatives, of wheat-growing constituencies, are prepared to allow this proposal to go through because they, are not game to say one word either against it or in support of it.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2667

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated : -

Darwin: Replanning

Mr Blain:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

. Is it a fact that, if the Mclnnis-Miller town plan bc discarded in re-planning Darwin, the lavish hotel on the sea frontage will bc left on the Government’s hands unless the licence be re-granted? 2. («) Is it a fact that because the ‘ licencees failed to apply for the renewal of the licence the new Ordinance, No. 1 of 194(1, makes it impossible by law for the licence to be granted; (6) if so, does this mean that the owners will be able to cut. their loss?
Does he intend to promulgate a further ordinance to enable the licencees to apply for the renewal of the licence?
Have the owners or licencees made any such further request since Ordinance No. 1 of 1 040 was promulgated?
If not.” what will bc the cost to the Government if the owners decide to leave the building on the Government’s hands as acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act?
1. Is the Commonwealth Bank, situated in the centre of the business area on land ostensibly required for naval purposes, to be given a new site, and this beautiful building used to house naval stores?
If not to be used for naval stores, to what use is it proposed to put this building?
Who was the person who first urged the discarding of the Mclnnis-Miller plan?
Was it the former Administrator, the Minister, a senior naval officer, or a senior officerof the Department of Works and Housing?
Will he explain the factors that induced . him to recommend the alteration to Cabinet?
Are the interests of Hotel Darwin to take precedence over the church lands that have been totally confiscated by the new plan?
Will he take immediate action to return the lands confiscated, and allow a plebiscite of Darwin land-holders to ascertain if they prefer the Mclnnis-Miller-Symonds plan to bo substantially adopted?

Mr Johnson:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Works and Housing · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

It does not necessarily follow that this will be the position. 2. (a) No; (b) see (a).
No.
Yes.
As the amount to be paid for the property will be the subject of negotiation between the former owners and the Government, this information cannot be supplied.
I am not aware of any proposal to use this building to house naval stores. If the Commonwealth Bank desires another site in the new commercial centre, it will be granted one.
This is a matter for determination by the Naval authorities. 8, 9 and 10. The recommendation to retain the area in question for navalpurposes was made by the Defence Council and approved by the Government.
No.
No. Arrangements have been made for representatives of the citizens of Darwin to be consulted in connexion with certain aspects of the plan.

Mr.frank Packer.

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - On the 5th July, the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) asked a question concerning a quantity of furs said to have been found concealed in the luggage of Mr. Frank Packer, managing director of Consolidated Press Limited.

The Minister for Trade and Customs has now informed me that he has not yet received any official report which suggests that Mr. Frank Packer had a quantity of furs concealed in his luggage on his return to Australia recently. Inquiries are still being made into the matter. As regards the suggestion in the honorable member’s question of an attempt by Mr. Packer to smuggle pro hibited goods into Australia, the facts are that an incorrect declaration was made by Mr. Packer in relation to portion of his luggage which was forwarded by ship subsequent to his arrival by aircraft. Mr. Packer declared the whole of the contents of the luggage to be personal effects, whereas customs examination disclosed that, in addition, it included toys which had been sent to Australia as gifts to some children. This contravention of the Customs Act was made the subject of a departmental inquiry under Part XV. of that act at the Customs House, Sydney. The inquiry was open to the public and was attended by newspaper reporters. The section of the Customs Act under which the inquiry was held provides for a monetary penalty.

Salvage Commission: Termination of Appointment of Secretary

Mr Menzies:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

s asked the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice: -

Has Mr. Walker, the secretary of the Commonwealth Salvage Commission, been dismissed from his office? 2.If so, on what notice and for what reasons ?

Mr Lazzarini:
ALP

– The answers to the right honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

Mr. Walker was not dismissed. His services were terminated because of the reorganization brought about by the abolition of the Salvage Commission, and in accordance with the Pinner Report on the staffing of war-time activities. Mr. Walker was associated with Mr. Pinner in the compilation of this report and was well aware of the fact that the activities of the Salvage Commission were likely to terminate in September, 1945.
Mr. Walker, who was a temporary employee, was advised on the 19th June that his services would be terminated on the 26th June. He was, however, informed by the Commonwealth Controller of Salvage in January that his services would be terminated on the expiration of his sick and accrued recreation leave, viz., on the 26th June.

Commonwealth Disposals Commission : Credits from Sales; Release of Mechanical Equipment.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 20th June, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) asked the following question : - .

Can the Prime Minister say to what purpose the money raised by the Disposals Commission from the sale of goods is being applied?

The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

All credits arising from sales by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission are taken in reduction of war expenditure. Thus, on . page 4 of the Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue. Fund for the year ended 30th June,’ 1946, an amount of £15,635,4S1 is deducted from the gross expenditure on Defence and War (1939-45) Services of £393,585,378, leaving £152,940,857 to be charged to Loan Fund instead of £ 1 68,582,33S. The effect of this procedure is to reduce the debt burden.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– On the 20th June, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) asked a question relating to the disposal of mechanical equipment following the conclusion of the LendLease Settlement Agreement with the Government of the United States of America.

In my financial statement on the 12th J uly, I outlined in some detail the provisions of the agreement reached with the United States of America, and circulated copies of the text of the agreement. L also indicated that immediately following the conclusion of the agreement, the Government instructed all Commonwealth departments to take urgent steps to declare* to the Commonwealth Disposals Commission any goods surplus to the Commonwealth’s requirements, and that the sale of these surpluses to private purchasers would be arranged by the Disposals Commission. The Commonwealth Disposals Commission recently arranged for surplus tractors to be sold through the trade, which will then sell to sponsored buyers. Surplus tractors sold in this way are those available after the requirements of Commonwealth and State government departments and local government instrumentalities are met. Surpluses of heavy mechanical earthmoving equipment of lend-lease origin are now being declared by the services and will be made available in increasing numbers to government instrumentalities and other users of high essentiality. Certain purchases of earth-moving equipment from United States surpluses in Australia and the islands have also been made and these supplies are in the course of distribution to essential users. I assure the honorable member that every effort is being .made to expedite disposals of surplus earth-moving equipment so that the benefit of the use of this equipment may be had at an early date.

Mr Chifley:
ALP

y. - On the 19th June, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) asked a question relating to the disposal of mechanical equipment following the conclusion of the Lend-Lease Settlement Agreement with the Government of the United States of America.

In my financial statement on the 12th July, I outlined in some detail the provisions of the agreement reached with the United States of America and circulated copies of the text of the agreement. I also indicated that immediately following the conclusion of the agreement, the Government instructed all Commonwealth departments to take urgent steps to declare to the Commonwealth Disposals Commission any goods surplus to the Commonwealth’s requirements, and that the sale of these surpluses to private purchasers would he arranged by the Disposals Commission. The Commonwealth Disposals Commission recently arranged for surplus tractors to be sold through the trade, which will then sell to sponsored buyers. Surplus tractor* sold, in this way are those available after the requirements of Commonwealth and State government departments and local government instrumentalities are met. Surpluses of heavy mechanical earthmoving equipment of lend-lease origin are now being declared by. the services and will be made available in increasing numbers to government instrumentalities and other users of high essentiality. Certain purchases of earth-moving equipment from United States surpluses in Australia and the islands have also been made and these supplies are in the course of distribution to essential users. I assure the honorable member that every effort is being made to expedite disposal* of surplus earth-moving equipment so that the benefit of the use of this equipment may be had at an early date.

Diesel Fuel Oil.

Mr FoRDE:
ALP

E.-r-On the 11th July, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) asked that the Minister for Trade and Customs request the Prices Commissioner to investigate the landed costs of diesel oil with a view to reducing the price to consumers.

I have been informed by the Minister for Trade and Customs that the prices of petroleum products are continually under review by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner and that those prices are periodically adjusted in accordance with change of actual cost. The recent trend of costs has been downwards and this trend, if continued, should be reflected in due course in lower prices.

Dairying Industry; Milk Subsidy in Queensland.

Mr Forde:
ALP

– On the motion for the adjournment of the House on the 5th July, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked a number of questions concerning apparent anomalies in the payment of milk subsidy in Queensland.

I have taken up this matter with the Minister for Trade and Customs and have been informed that the difference arises from the fact that higher returns in Brisbane are necessary to cover, amongst other things, freight costs to the metropolitan market, higher purity standards and higher production costs associated with farming on uneconomic areas close to the city. With regard to the poor seasonal conditions referred to, the subsidy scheme covering the capital cities makes special provision for additional subsidies where costs are gradually increased owing to extraordinary seasonal conditions. However, in view of the honorable member’s statements, I am informed that consideration will be given to such payments in the circumstances indicated by him. The third question raised by the honorable memberrelated to withholding subsidy payments. This circumstance arises from overpayments made consequent upon incorrect claims submitted by wholesalers. The question of withholding payments is not yet finalized, being at present under consideration by the Prices Stabilization Committee.

Wheat Industry : Imports ; Exports to New Zealand

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

l asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

How much wheat was imported into Australia for the four years ended the 31st December. 1945?
What quality was this wheat?
What was the average landed cost per bushel, Australian currency?
What fund was drawn on for the payment of this wheat?

Mr Scully:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

1941-42, nil; 1942-43, nil; 1943-44, 210 bushels; . 1944-45, nil; 1945-46, 936,271 bushels.
1943-44, no details are available; 1945-46, feed quality.
This wheat was obtained under lend-lease, and I am not aware what landed value was placed on it.
The wheat was obtained under lend-lease.

Mr Scully:
ALP

y. - Yesterday the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) asked a. question concerning wheat for New Zealand.

I have been informed that it has been reported that the price of this wheat was 5s. 9d. a bushel. Actually wheat was exported to New Zealand at the current price, usually 9s. 6d. a bushel bulk, and 9s.111/2d. a bushel bagged.

Meat Industry : Pig Meats, Appointment of Inspector in Victoria.

Mr Scully:
ALP

– On the 4th July, I made a statement concerning the appointment by the Controller of Meat Supplies of an inspector in Victoria to supervise pig sales. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) then raised a further point regarding a meeting held in Melbourne in connexion with the price of pigs at auction. Later, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin) asked further questions in connexion with this matter and also concerning the appointment of an inspector.

I repeat that the only time Mr. J. M. Wilson acted as an inspector on behalf of Meat Control was for the period from the 10th June, 1945, to the 19th July, 1945. This appointment was not “an outrageous act of public administration by a government department “, as claimed by the honorable member for Indi. It was an attempt by a government department, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner, to give effect to the laws of the Commonwealth. The honorable member for Indi is very well aware of the fact that the pig producers of Victoria, together with pig producers of the other States, requested governments to give them a stabilized plan for their industry. They were given a plan, namely the pig-meat plan, with a schedule of prices which every fairminded pig producer in Australia recognized as payable. Certain producer elements, however, were not content with stabilized plan prices but sought what, in effect, were black-market prices at auction. It was in an attempt to check these prices that an inspector was appointed to police pig markets in Victoria for the period above-mentioned.

I understand that about eight or ten weeks ago bacon curers and pig-meat exporters in Victoria met to consider what action they should take in order to ensure that pig-meat plan prices were adhered to. This meeting was not convened by Meat Control, although the Deputy Controller of Meat Supplies and the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) were in attendance. The meeting decided on a course of action which was given effect to, but there was no official recognition of the action taken. The further suggestion by the honorable member for Indi that an inspector was appointed recently by the Controller of Meat Supplies is not correct. It is quite clear that he has been misinformed in connexion with the meeting and the action taken. In fact, he has been confused by his informant regarding the appointment of an inspector during JuneJuly, 1945, and the meeting held in Melbourne recently. The meeting could not decide that the price of pigs on the hoof should be reduced, as these should have been related to the pig-meat plan prices. I understand, however, that the meeting did decide that buyers would not bid for pigs at prices in excess of those related to the plan prices. It is remarkable that the main difficulties which have been encountered in regard to the implementation of pig-meat plan prices and meat prices generally have occurred in Victoria. re-establishment.

Mr Dedman:
ALP

n. - On the 10th July, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Sheehy) asked the following question: -

Can the Minister give the House any information on the progress being made in the re-establishment of ex-service men and women?

I now supply the following information : -

Commonwealth Employment Service

Mr White:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

e asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

How many jobs were found for: (a) males, and (b) females by the Commonwealth Employment Service during June, 1946?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Confirmed placements during June were as follows : -

Males, 13,022; (b) females, 3,468.

Prices Control

Mr Conelan:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Can he give the House any information regarding the price control situation in the United States of America?
Are reports that prices in that country have sky-rocketed correct?
Is the price control system in Australia likely to be affected by events in America?
Will the adjustment of the Canadian dollar to parity with the American dollar result in. a price increase on Canadian goods purchased by Australia?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

The Government has no official advices regarding the price control situation in the United States of America, and cannot give the honorable member any information beyond that which has appeared in the Australian press reports on the subject. 2 and 3. See reply to No. 1.
It is impossible to forecast the precise effect of the appreciation of the Canadian dollar on the cost of Canadian goods purchased by Australia. In view, however, of the present world-wide scarcity of goods, it is to be expected that there will be a tendency for the landed cost of Australian imports from Canada to increase.

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amounts of money have been voted by Parliament to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited for purposes other than share capital since the inception of the company?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Under an agreement entered into in 1922 the Commonwealth was required to pay to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited the difference between the expenditure for the upkeep and maintenance of the coastal and island radio stations and the revenue derived fi om traffic from “such stations. This agreement operated from 29th March, 1922, to 28th March, 1926,. in respect of coastal stations, and from 29th March, 1922, to 28th March, 1927, in respect of island stations. A total amount of £143,131 was paid for this purpose to . Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia ) Limited during the periods indicated.
1. By way of a consequent agreement dated 1927 (clause 12) the Commonwealth was required to pay to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited as a contribution towards the upkeep and maintenance of coastal and island radio stations the sum of £45,000 per annum and Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited was required to pay to the Commonwealth 30 per .cent, of the revenue earned by the company in the continuance of the services which .were carried out by these stations at the commencement of the agreement. It will be seen by reference to Hansard of the 17 th November, 1927, that the Prime Minister in his speech on the bill for the Wireless Agreement Act of 1927 indicated that this provision was to compensate the company for the loss of terminal rights. The payment to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited from 29th March, 1927, to 30th June, 1946, under this clause was £673,477.
Under clauses 8 and 9 of the agreement of 1927, Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia ) Limited was. also paid 3d. per month in respect of each broadcast listener’s licence in force in’ return for which the company made available its Australian patent rights free of charge . to broadcasting stations, listeners, radio dealers and manufacturers. This arrangement was in force from list’ November, 1927, to 28th February, 1934, and the amount paid to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited during that period was £329,167.

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked -the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amounts, if any, of claims against Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited have been written off by the Commonwealth at any time?

Mr Chifley:
ALP

-. - The only claim which the Commonwealth has withdrawn was one for approximately £21,000 for charges to which it claimed it wa3 entitled in respect of “ drop “ copies of overseas press telegrams delivered by the company to parties other than the addressee. As the result of a High Court decision against the Commonmonwealth, the claim was withdrawn.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 July 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1946/19460717_reps_17_187/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives17 July 1946

HOUR OF MEETING

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION CONFERENCE

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Mr McEWEN:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DUTCH SHIPS

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr MAKIN:Minister for Aircraft Production · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr MAKIN:

Mr Holt:

Mr MAKIN:

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Mr RUSSELL:GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

QUESTION

FOOD FOR BRITAIN

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Mr BREEN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:ALP

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:

Mr McEWEN:

Mr SCULLY:

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

RABBIT SKINS

Mr FRASER:Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:ALP

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:ALP

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Mr SPENDER:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON, WIRE AND WIRE NETTING

Mr WILLIAMS:ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LAZZARINI:Minister for Works and Housing · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr TURNBULL:WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr CALWELL:Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

MATERNITY ACCOMMODATION IN HOSPITALS

Mr SHEEHY:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:ALP

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:ALP

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

HOSPITAL BENEFITS SCHEME

Mr DALY:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:ALP

QUESTION

WOOLLEN TEXTILES

Mr BERNARD CORSER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

House of Representatives
17 July 1946

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Prime Minister · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Aircraft Production · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr FRASER:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for Post-war Reconstruction · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr WILLIAMS:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Works and Housing · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Immigration · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr SHEEHY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr FALSTEIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Minister for Air · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr TURNBULL:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA · CP

Mr ABBOTT:
New England