Senate
13 November 1936

14th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 14th Parliament
  3. 1936

The Deputy President (Senator Sampson) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1823

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Sugar Agreement Act - Fifth Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for the year ended 31st August, 1936.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act-

Ordinance No. 44of 1 936 - Alsatian Dogs.

page 1823

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (MARKETING) BILL 1936

Personal Explanation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE. - by leave - Honorable senators will remember that, during the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Marketing) Bill yesterday, Senator Duncan-Hughes referred to the attitude of the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in Adelaide in August. I understood the honorable senator to say that the Premier of Queensland favoured the subject of marketing being dealt with by means of an excise duty and a bounty rather than by an alteration of the Constitution. Having read the Hansard proof of my speech I think that, an explanation from rae is necessary, otherwise I would perhaps be doing the honorable senator an injustice. The fact of the matter is that we were each dealing with a different stage of the proceedings of the conference. The honorable senator was referring to a later stage of the proceedings when I understood him to be referring to an earlier stage. Perhaps I should explain to the Senate what actually occurred. When the conference dealt with this subject the first proposal put forward was for an alteration of the Constitution ; no exact terms were stated, but the general purport of the proposal was to give, to the Com- monwealth the power which it thought it held prior to the decision of the Privy Council in the James case. In the discussion on that point Mr. Forgan Smith made his position and that of his governmnent perfectly clear in . the statement which I quoted to the Senate. When the vote on that proposal was taken, the Premiers of New South AVales, Victoria and Queensland voted in the affirmative with the Commonwealth, and the representatives of South Australia Western Australia, and Tasmania voted against it. At a later stage, Mr. Forgan Smith moved a motion that the Commonwealth should impose an excise duty and provide for the payment of a bounty, and that was the motion quoted by the honorable senator. On that occasion he made a statement similar to that quoted by Senator Duncan-Hughes. I think it only fair to point out that, before that stage was reached, Mr. Forgan Smith had indicated that he regarded the imposition of an excise duty and the payment of a bounty as only a temporary expedient.

page 1823

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (AVIATION) BILL 1936

Senator HARDY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether the Minister who moves the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aviation) Bill, whichwill come before the Senate shortly, will deal in detail with the judgment given by the High Court, and refer particularly to the implied and extensive powers proposed to be given to the Commonwealth, which, in my opinion, will override the sovereign powers of the States?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I shall bring the honorable senator’s suggestion under the notice of the Assistant Minister (Senator Brennan), who will move thp second reading of the bill.

page 1823

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT

Administrative Work

Prime Minister of New Zealand had stated that the Government desired that every member available should be given an opportunity to share in that work? In view of the differences of opinion which have been apparent during the past week or two between the members of the parties supporting this Government will the Minister inform the Senate whether there is a possibility of similar action being taken by the Commonwealth Government in order to overcome such difficulties.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is it not a fact that the members of the United Australia party and the Country party are performing the work of the country regardless of whether the Parliament is or is not in session?

Question not answered.

page 1824

QUESTION

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he inform the Senate when, if at all, the Government proposes to ratify the Statute of Westminster?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

It is proposed to introduce a bill to adopt the Statute during the present session.

page 1824

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government received an application from the Government of Western Australia for a grant for drought relief in that State?
  2. If so,what decision has been arrived at in the matter ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government of Western Australia has been informed that the Commonwealth Government regrets it cannot see its way clear to assume financial responsibility for losses arising from the results of drought as this is necessarily a State responsibility and is closely wrapped up in other phases of State government policy over which the Commonwealth Government has no jurisdiction, or control.

At the recent Loan Council meeting, however, sympathetic consideration was given to the difficult situation in which Western Australia is placed as a result of the drought, and the Loan Council unanimously approved of the allocation of an additional million pounds of loan money to that State with a view to affording it assistance to meet this unusual strain upon its financial resources. In this action the Commonwealth Government co-operated to the fullest possible extent. As regards the forthcoming loan, all governments, and in particular the Commonwealth Government, agreed to accept reduced proportions in order that Western Australia’s share might be increased.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Ministers upon notice -

  1. Has the Government received the following resolution, carried at a mass meeting of farmers held at Dalwallinu, Western Australia, on the 24th October last: - “This combined meeting of farmers and representatives of the commercial community of the Dalwallinu Road Board district, realizing the disastrous effect of the present adverse seasonal conditions - (1) upon the farmers themselves; (2) upon the business section of the community; (3) upon the State and nation as a whole, desires to draw attention to the urgent and immediate necessity for the provision of adequate relief measures to enable our farmers to remain on their holdings in continued production in the wider interests of the State and Commonwealth “ ?
  2. What action (if any) is the Commonwealth Government taking in the matter?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Iinvite the honorable senator’s attention to the reply given to-day to another question oh this subject.

page 1824

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY TIME-TABLE

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the new time-table over the Trans- Australian railway is causing considerable dissatisfaction in Western Australia, so far as the service from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta is concerned?
  2. Is it a fact that two trains are to leave Kalgoorlie on consecutive days, and one train for the other five days?
  3. Why cannot the time-table which operated when three trains were run weekly, before the depression, be reverted to, namely, leaving Kalgoorlie on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays ?
  4. Why is the service from the Eastern States to Western Australia operated on alternate days, thus providing much more convenience than the service from Western Australia?
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Nocomplaints have been receivedby the CommonwealthRail ways Commissioner, although it has been noticed that adverse comments have appeared in the Western Australian press.
  2. Yes.
  3. The State railways concerned declined to agree.
  4. The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner proposed the restoration of the timetable in operation previous to the reduction to two trains weekly. South Australia and Western Australia agreed in regard to the westward ‘bound trains, but failed to agree in regard to the eastward bound trains. A number of different proposals was submitted to the States by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, providing for alternate departure days, but the time- table to commence on the 23rd November . provides for the only days of running acceptable to the two State Railway Administrations concerned.

page 1825

QUESTION

HIGH COMMISSIONER IN AUSTRALIA FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Senator COLLINGS:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Was the Commonwealth Government consulted in any way regarding the appointment of Sir Geoffrey Whiskard as British High Com- missioner in Australia?
  2. Is the Commonwealth financially committed in any way either directly or indirectlyregarding such appointment?
  3. If so, what is the nature and extent of such financial commitment?
  4. Has the Commonwealth Government any control over Sir Geoffrey Whiskard’s official conduct and/or utterances while he is in Australia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The Commonwealth Government was informed of the intention of the United Kingdom Government to make such an appointment, but there was no prior consultation with the Common wealth Government as to the appointee to the position.
  2. and 3. No, except that facilities in regard to customs, taxation and motor registration, similar to those accorded to dominion High Commissioners in the United Kingdom, are accorded in this instance.
  3. No.

page 1825

QUESTION

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL

James v. The Commonwealth.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

-DUGHES asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Whether Mr. F. A. James, as a result of the success of his recent appeal to the Privy Council in the case of James v. The Commonwealth. has started any proceedings to recover damages from the Commonwealth; and if so, what amount does he claim?

Senator BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · VICTORIA · UAP

– So far as the Attorney-General is aware, no proceedings against the Commonwealth have been commenced by Mr. James.

page 1825

QUESTION

MILITIA

Physical Standard

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is the physical standard for recruits in the Australian militia as high as that required of British army recruits?
  2. What is the percentage of rejects of the recruits offering for service in the Australian militia?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The Minister for Defence has supplied the following particulars: -

  1. In general the physical standard required by the British army is higher. The following table shows the minimum general physical standard required for the Australian militia and the British army: -

The above physical standard applies to recruits in general. Higher standards are required in both instances as the age and height of recruits increases, but in the case of the Britsh army greater physical standards arc required in consequence of these increases.

  1. 3.3 per cent, for the year ended the 30th June, 1936.

page 1825

APPROPRIATION BILL 1936-37

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time..

Debate (on motion by Senator Col lings) adjourned.

page 1826

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION’ (MARKETING) BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 12th November (vide page 1763) on motion by Senator Brennan -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I have no intention to enter into a long disquisition on this matter, because the Opposition is behind the Government in support of the measure as far as it goes. The Labour party in this chamber unanimously favours the proposal to be submitted to the people at the referendum, but considers that it does not go far enough. I regret that grossly unfair and malicious political propaganda has been indulged in by Senators Hardy and James McLachlan. I do not know why they should “stick the boot” into the Labour movement. Senator Hardy abused the Labour party because it does not see eye to eye with him, but Labour members do not see eye to eye with Senator Hardy. Senator James McLachlan, after referring to the fact that in the House of Representatives the discussion on this hill ranged from Dan to Beer-Sheba, proceeded to discuss the Labour party find strikes*

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sampson) j - But ho was called to order.

Senator BROWN:

– My only object in referring to the matter is to defend my own party. It is hardly necessary, in endeavouring to safeguard the interests of the primary producers, to indulge in vitriolic criticism of the Labour party. Honorable senators opposite referred yesterday to Labour members who are opposed to the bill, but there is a difference, of course, between opposition to the hill and opposition to the question to be submitted to the people by referendum. The Premier of South Australia (Mr. Butler) who objects to the bill is a tory. There are also tories in Tasmania, and some of them are opposed to this measure.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Mr. Ogilvie, for instance.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, on both sides in politics we find supporters and opponents of the proposal. In this chamber are tories who have expressed strong disapproval of the bill. Senator Duncan-Hughes, the truest and bluest of the true-blue tories, is opposed to it heart and soul. When I return to Queensland, I shall tell the people of my State about this gentleman. I have the highest regard for him, because he is always candid and has courage to express his opinions. I do not know whether I should call Senator Millen a tory or a conservative, but he owes allegiance to the United Australia party, which is a tory party. Senator Payne, like Senator Millen, objected .to the bill, but he qualified his opposition by stating that later he would submit an amendment which would unite all parties and people in Australia and induce them to support the measure. He will be very clever if he can do that.

One cannot help being impressed by the differences of opinion among honorable senators as to the wisdom of this proposal. Senator Hardy, with all his oratorical power, declared the bill to be one of the most vitally important measures ever placed before the Parliament, whilst Senator Duncan-Hughes,’ in his Chesterfieldian manner, said that it is not a measure of great consequence.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– What about Mr. Blackburn?

Senator BROWN:

– I shall come to the honorable member for Bourke in a minute. I have shown that there is a vast difference of opinion among the intellectuals on both sides.

Senator Hardy:

– It is a non-party matter.

Senator BROWN:

– Members of the Opposition treat it as a non-pary question in the interests of the people generally and of the primary producers in particular. We have always supported measures designed to assist the farmers, yet Senator James McLachlan, himself a farmer, has vilified the Labour party in discussing this bill. He cannot point to one action of the Opposition that has been contrary to the farmers’ interests.

Senator Dein:

– Members of the Labour party in other places have opposed the bill.

Senator BROWN:

– -1 am trying to show that we regard it as a non-party measure; otherwise members of the Opposition in this chamber could not speak in favour of it. Despite the foolish utterances of Senator Hardy and the puerile criticism of the Labour party voiced by Senator James McLachlan, 1 give opponents of the bill credit for being sincere. I believe that Senator DuncanHughes has spoken against the measure because he is convinced that the best method of overcoming the disabilities of the farmers and the fruit-growers has not been employed. I alsO give to the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) credit for having the same high aims as the honorable senator. If ever there was an idealist, the honorable mo in bor for Bourke is> one.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Is he not also a Communist?

Senator BROWN:

– 1 read in thi”, morning’s press that he has advocated a certain Hue of action, hut that does not mean that he i.° a Communist. He opposed the measure because he thought that the proposed alteration of the Constitution was merely designed to give to this Parliament power to validate schemes which ir doe.-; not initiate and for which it can take no responsibility. If the argument advanced by the honorable member could be substantiated it would have considerable weight with me. It should not be said that Labour members of the House of Representatives aro opposing the bill out of sheer “ cussedness “. The honorable member for Bourke opposed it because he thought also that it would not strengthen or develop the Australian character of the federal union, but would rather encourage provincialism. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) opposed the hill on the ground that if marketing is to he controlled this Parliament should control it entirely. ‘ The Labour party endorses that policy. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) asked whether the primary producers had exploited the people by reason of organized marketing, arid the honorable member for Melbourne Ports replied that, they had not. I do not believe that the fruit-growers have exploited the public a ay more tha n the sugar growers have. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports went on to say -

I was never so unhappy about a bill as I am about this ona, for, “as most honorable members know, 1 favour thu thorough organization of our, primary ami secondary industries. 1 accept that statement. The honorable member is as sincere and earliest as is Senator Duncan-Hughes. He also asked why the Prime Minister did not take the country into his confidence and tell it what the Government proposed to do in regard- to an effective alteration of the Constitution. According to my reading of the debate in the other branch of the legislature, one of the main arguments advanced in. opposition to the bill was that it embodies a sectional proposal. Surely in this generation, after our experience of the weaknesses of the Constitution, it would be possible for a Parliament of intelligent men, instead of approaching the people on a sectional issue, to ask for full powers to enable the. Commonwealth, to do the necessary work. I do not intend to vilify or abuse any members of my party who have criticized this measure what their attitude will be in the electorates, I do not know. But every member of the Parliament has a right to criticize any measure, no matter how vital or important it may he, and it is not fit ;and proper that those who do so should be accused of ulterior motives and political humbug.

Senator Hardy:

– What did “Jock” Garden say?

Senator BROWN:

– - What did Gladstone say in 1881? I neither know nor care. Neither do I know nor care what “ Jock “ Garden said. Mr. Garden is fully capable of thinking for himself, and has the courage to express his opinions.

The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) who, like Mr. Blackburn and Senator Duncan-Hughes, is a lawyer, made an interesting speech on this subject in the House of Representatives. For a. mim her of years we were led to believe that the Commonwealth was not bound by section 92. Some say that since 1921 that, has been the interpretation placed upon the section, and that prior to 1921 the view was generally accepted that the Commonwealth was bound. Mr. Blackburn said that it was not until 1928, when the High Court delivered judgment in the *Vizzard case that the interpretation of section 92 which has been upset by the Privy Council, was arrived at. Mr. Brennan, in his speech, said that if we desired to go to the country on this matter with a clear issue, and did not wish to muddle the minds of the proletariat generally, we should hold a referendum on the clear proposal “ this section shall not bind the Commonwealth “. That would be a simple and straightforward issue to submit to the people, and if the amendment were passed, the Commonwealth would be restored to the position it was thought to occupy until the Privy Council said otherwise. A proposal that the Commonwealth should not be bound by section 92 would be a plain statement that would be read and understood by every man and woman in the Australian community.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– It would have less chance of being approved by the people.

Senator BROWN:

– The honorable senator is entitled to his own opinion. I contend that such a proposal would be better than that contained in the bill.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– It certainly would be clearer.

Senator BROWN:

– Mr. Brennan said that the Government was anxious ro place the Commonwealth in the same position as it thought it occupied hitherto, but he contended that the present proposal, so far from restoring the Commonwealth to that position, placed it in a worse position, in that, by confining the new authority to “ marketing “, it placed a definite limitation upon the power of the Commonwealth in respect of all other matters covered by the term trade and commerce. It seems extraordinary to me that a gentleman of high legal and intellectual attainments should say that this proposal limits the Commonwealth, whilst at the same time another gentleman of equal attainments says that section. 92 of the Constitution would be wiped out if it were altered in the manner suggested by the first gentleman. How can we expect the people to arrive at a reasonable understanding of the problem when conflicting opinions are expressed by two gentlemen learned in the law. I am not a lawyer, hut I have some idea of how far this enlargement of power, if agreed to, may be carried. Other criticism of this bill is in regard to the meaning of the word “ marketing “. The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) sat up night after night endeavouring to arrive at a term which would bring all parliamentarians together, so that they could, as a united party, urge the people to approve the desired alteration. Finally he chose the term “ marketing “. I do not know whether or not my definition is precise, but I consider that the word covers the operations of buying and selling.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Trade and commerce.

Senator BROWN:

– If it does mean trade and commerce, why does not the Government accept the good advice of Mr. Brennan and put forward a proposal to free the Commonwealth from the limitations of section 92? There could be no argument against that. I do not desire the Senate to take the view that we shall not support this proposal; we shall fight for it, but we shall certainly say that if the Government had the confidence and courage which it should have, it would appeal for such an alteration of the Constitution as would give to this Parliament powers which would be effective to safeguard the people. In other words, the Government should be courageous enough to have the Constitution brought up to date, so that we shall not be paralysed by the dead ‘ hand of the past. Another reason why some people oppose this measure is because they think that other sections of the community, in addition to the farmers, should becatered for. Surely no representative of the farmers would object to a Labour man fighting on behalf of the hewers of wocd and the drawers of water, who are likely at any time to be subjected to the miseries of unemployment. It is no crime to suggest that if the Commonwealth’ intends to spend £100,000 on an appeal to the people for an alteration of the Constitution on behalf of one section of the community, it should be prepared at the same time to seek a further alteration of the Constitution on behalf of another section. Because the Labour party has had the temerity to mention this aspect, it has been abused by honorable senators opposite and accused of having ulterior motives. It is just as right and proper for the Labour party to seek safeguards for the workers as it is for the Government to seek safeguards for the farmers. Indeed, if the Labour party did not do so it would not bc doing its duty. It was suggested, for instance, by some honorable members of the House of Representatives, that the referendum proposals should also include the granting of powers to the Commonwealth to enable it to deal with all industrial matters, including the hours of labour. I do not intend at the present stage to discuss that subject, but honorable members were within their rights in proposing such an enlargement of the appeal to the people. If it is right to expend £100,000’ on obtaining justice for the farmers, it would be equally right to seek at the same time justice for hundreds of thousands of workers, who may at any time be relegated to the industrial scrapheap. The idea behind the suggestion that wider industrial powers should be obtained for the Commonwealth was that, were they obtained, it would be possible for those on the dole to get a fair share of the work of the community and of the common pool of wealth. Surely there is nothing wrong in that. I am sure that if I put this proposal to any group of farmers, excluding, of course, the truest and bluest of tories, they would agree with mo. The Labour Government in Queensland for twenty years has had a large measure of support from the farmers. It has done splendid work for the farmers, having organized them, as my leader (Senator Collings) has already pointed out, to a greater extent than they have been organized in any other part of the world. It has formed local bodies of producers and spent large sums of money in educating the farmers to the necessity for organization of their industries. The activities of the Queensland Government in this direction afford a shining example of what should be done to protect the farmers from the predatory attacks of the middlemen - the financial farmers who farm the farmers. I asked a question of the Assistant Minister (Senator Brennan) as to whether labour power was regarded as a commodity. Apparently, he did not quite understand my question, because he said that he would ship it all overseas. If he sent the whole of the labour power overseas, honorable senators would then be compelled to work. Labour power is a commodity which is bought and sold in the market. Sometimes it commands a higher price than at other times. If the supply exceeds the demand, the price falls.

Senator Arkins:

– lt is a controlled commodity.

Senator BROWN:

– It if. a controlled commodity to the extent that the Arbitration Court fixes the price; but there are ways by which the price may be reduced. When thousands of men are knocking at the factory door seeking work, some of them are inclined to accept, less than award rates. As a labour union organizer I have had experience of that. I have known so-called Christian employers to take advantage of an oversupply of the commodity to force wages down below award rates, and I have known of such employers being prosecuted. I do not know whether labour power will be controllable under this legislation; but I do say that if we adopt a policy of organized marketing and a guaranteed price, so that the farmer may be guaranteed a livelihood - and that policy the Labour party endorses - we should also guarantee a livelihood to every member of the Australian family, including men and women out of work. Those who are on the dole or on relief work have .a right to sit down at the Australian family tabic to a decent meal. When we reach that Christian state of equality in regard to the community that has been reached in the private family life of the people, where Tom, Dick and Harry sit down with father and mother at the table, and all share alike, the proletariat will enjoy that competence which now we seek for the grower of wheat, fruit and other primary products. Labour says that Australia- has reached that stage in its economic development at which it is imperative that the Constitution shall be altered to allow the central government to enact legislation whian will assure a sufficiency to every man and woman in the community. Surely there is nothing wrong with thai. Yet Senators Hardy and James McLachlan heaped abuse on the Labour party because its representatives in this chamber and elsewhere have urged these reforms. If our democratic community is to continue, it must throw offthe cloak of timidity and act courageously; it must ask the people to agree to reforms that are necessary. Hit- lerdid not concern himself with the States Germany, but swept away all obstacles. Mussolini did the same in Italy, when he walked over the corpse of liberty. Hitler and Mussolini sneer at democratic institutions, and wipe out parliaments. But what dictators achieve by domineering; methods, British communities achieve by democratic methods. Hitler and Mussolini charge democracy with being timid; and the charge is not withoit foundation for, in this democratic community, there is a government which fears to ask the people for greater powers in order to carry out necessary reforms. Labourbelieves that the Parliament should have the courage to ask the people for extended powers. If the people were convinced of the need for organized effort in the economic field, the national spirit would be aroused in them, and they would vote to give those powers. If, however, the Parliament, instead of being courageous, acts like timid mice, and by the altering of a word here and another there tries to achieve its object, it will not appeal to . anyone. Australians do not respond to such pusillanimity, and those who adopt such methods weaken their own case. Because of its timidity the Government is creating an inferiority complex in the community. Throughout the world to-day there is an economic fight between country and country. Dictators in Europe are organizing their States not only politically, but also economically; and if Australia is to win through, it must do the same. Australia must have sufficient courage to organize its economic forces, otherwise it will be destroyed by countries which are better organized. Unless courage is shown, sooner or later a change must take place in the political scheme of things. In advocating the organizing of our economic forces, I do not wish to be understood to say that our economic problems will thereby be solved. There can be no real solution of the problem until the existing system is abolished, and the economic machinery is utilized for the good of the people generally. The market is narrowing almost day by day. The system under which we live is forcing the world more and more swiftly towards a crisis. Organized marketing is only a step towards more intense competition. Even if our marketing organization be improved, so that we can compete on more favorable terms with our commercial rivals than would otherwise be possible, that will not solve our economic problems. Day by day intelligent men, even in Australia, are being forced to the conclusion that, sooner or later, other methods must be applied to those problems.

I have been interested in the oftrepeated statement that the Government had not exhausted the possibilities of the Constitution. Senator Duncan-Hughes, for instance, spoke of bounties and excise. The decisionin the James case has upset all our marketing schemes, and some months must elapse before the people can agree to the Government’s proposals. I had intended to ask a question relating to the Government’s intention in the meantime, but did not do so because of the evasive nature of the answers given to most questions; but I should like to know what is to be done in the interval between now and next March to help the farmers to get back to the old position.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Independent buyers are acting in co-operation.

Senator BROWN:

– There is danger that men like Mr. James will make an attempt to upset the existing arrangement. I am reminded of a member of a parliamentary delegation who, in order to get on good terms with a Scottish audience, said that he had Scottish blood in bis veins, because his father-in-law was a Scotsman.I have not got farmer blood in my veins, but my father-in-law is a farmer, who is greatly concerned-

Senator Guthrie:

– Because he has the honorable senator as a son-in-law?

Senator BROWN:

– No ; but because of the present unstable price of butter. I admit that, at first, he was greatly concerned at the prospect of having a Labour man for a son-in-law, but after he had talked with me, he went round the district and said, “That son-in-law of mine is a really sensible chap;he knows what he is talking about; he has good ideas”. Like a good many farmers and representatives of farmers, he was antagonistic to the workers. He had two men employed on his farm, and when the rural workers’ award came into operation, he found that he had to pay each of them 5s. a week more. He was furious. When I saw him he said that if he could organize a number of farmers and supply them with guns, he would “ shoot Parliament House to hell “. I said, “ My dear father-in-law, do those men earn the money that you pay to them?” He replied, “ My colonial oath they do. If not, they would have to get off the job pretty quickly”. I asked him if he read the Brisbane Courier, and he replied, “Yes; it is my bible”. I then inquired whether he had ever seen in the Courier a suggestion that interest fates should be reduced. At that time he was paying about £5 a week in interest. I went on to explain that the Labour party’s policy was to reduce interest rates so that he would not have to pay more than £1 a week. I pointed out that, instead of complaining about having to pay an extra 10s. a week to men who earned the money, he should concern himself about paying £4 a week too much to a predatory institution which did not earn it. He then realized that I was a good fellow, and to-day my father-in-law and I are close friends. His earlier attitude was due to the false propaganda of men like ‘Senators Hardy and James McLachlan. but when he got the truth from me, he became a. good Labour man. I was about to refer to the difference of opinion which exists regarding the powers of the Commonwealth under the Constitution. At the University of Queensland there is a man named J. L. K. Gifford, who is a lecturer on economics. Mr. Gifford said that the referendum is not really necessary. It is comforting to know that we need not spend £1.00.000 on a referendum ; possibly we may be able to utilize the money for the purpose of a few more jaunts. His argument is that the Commonwealth has power under the Constitution to fix prices for any primary commodity throughout the Commonwealth, and that it could set up a board to buy the whole of the output of any commodity and sell abroad and on the home market in such proportions as it chooses. He said that section 51 gives to the Commonwealth full and complete power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other conntries and amongst the States, but this power, in relation to interstate trade, is limited by section 92. But, he said, section 92 is a bogy, and has been misunderstood even by lawyers - one might even say, especially by lawyers. Mr. Gifford said that the Commonwealth Government could enact a law, for example, for the marketing of dried fruits, and apply either the South Australian, or some other existing set of regulations, uniformly throughout the Commonwealth. and that there is really no need whatever for agreement, by the State governments or for a referendum. It appears that, in his view, if a law were enacted under section 51, and the regulations of, say, South Australia, were made universal, there would be no distinction as ‘ between State and State, and consequently no interference with freedom of interstate trade. The Constitution provides that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be “ absolutely free “. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. The word “ absolutely “, in the sense in which it is used in the Constitution, as Senator Brennan knows, is not the correct one to use. As I have said there is no such thing as absolute freedom, because all freedom is limited. Even the members of the Privy Council recognized the limitation of freedom when they said-

As a matter of actual language “freedom” in section 02 must be somehow limited, and the only limitation which emerges from the context and which can logically and realistically he applied, is freedom at what is the crucial point in interstate trade, that is, the State harrier.

The Privy Council has declared that there is no “ absolute “ freedom but only a limited freedom. Mr. Gifford’s argument is that if a Commonwealth law were given universal application, there would be limited freedom for all, and section 92 would not act as a bar. I do not think that view is right, but I bring Mr; Gifford’s comments under notice in order that Senator Brennan may give us his views upon them.

In conclusion I say that, Labour senators will go out into the highways and byways of Queensland to advocate the carrying of this amendment. Our only regret, is thatthe Government did not have the intestinal stamina to formulate an appeal to the people which would be more in line with modern developments. However, simply because we cannot get the whole loaf we are not refusing to take a slice. Labour senators will go to the people of Queensland and say, “ This is all that the Government will do. If it will safeguard the splendid marketing legislation passed by the Government of Queensland, we are for it”. We are anxious to give to the farmers a return commensurate with their labour, not for six months of the year, but for the whole year round. We, as a party, stand for the thorough and complete organization of the whole of the industries of Australia, not only primary but also secondary, to the end that the energy applied tothe resources of Australia may yield the maximum return, and that commodities, instead of being burned or destroyed to maintain price levels, shall be available to the people according to their needs. I may be regarded as an idealist, but at least I have the courage of my convictions, and I should like to see this Government display a little bravery in regard to this matter. Recently I read in the Canberra Times one of the finest articles which have appeared in that journal. It pointed out that the Commonwealth has a good case to put to the people. Undoubtedly we have a case, but why have we not the courage to present it to the people in a way they will understand, by giving them an opportunity to vote solidly for a Constitution that would be equal to all modern demands.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

– If I had ever had any inclination to support this bill, the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) yesterday would certainly have convinced me that I was wrong. When we heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, possibly the Leader of the Government in the Senate on some future occasion, flaying that, in his opinion, all powers should be Vested in the Commonwealth andthat the States should have none-

Senator Collings:

– On a point of order. I am sure that Senator Grant is not wilfully misrepresenting me, but I assure him that I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was that all legislative powers should be vested in the Commonwealth. I did not enlarge on the administrative powers which necessarily would be transferred by the Commonwealth to the Stateparliaments, because that matter was not germane to the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– To refresh the honorable senator’s memory I shall read his actual words. He said -

This Parliament should have all the legislative powers and nobody else should hare any.

Senator Collings:

– That was in reply to an interjection regarding industrial powers.

Senator GRANT:

– When I hear remarks of this kind coming from the leader of the Labour party in the Senate, all I can say is that I should be sorry indeed to think that we, in the smaller States, should have to bow to the dictates of the larger States through their representatives in this Parliament if it had full legislative powers on all matters. The States of Australia entered federation on certain terms. Speaking for my own State, and, I think, for most of the other States also, I say confidently that, if section 92 had not been in the Constitution there would have been no federation. The members of the convention that drew up the Constitution made it perfectly clear that one of the primary reasons for federation was the necessity for the abolition of customs barriers at Che borders; but we are now asked to sanction the re-erection of these barriers, so far as marketing is concerned. What is marketing! It has been claimed by the Government that all that is sought in the measure now before the Senate is to have conferred upon this Parliament constitutionally the powers which it thought it possessed priorto the decision of the Privy Council in the James case. I have consulted same eminent constitutional authorities on the subject, who are definitely of opinion that the words proposed to be added in the proposed new section 92a would give to a Common- wealth government, of whatever creed or colour, full powers to stop interstate freetrade altogether if it wished to do so.

Senator Collings:

– Who are the constitutional authorities who say that?

Senator GRANT:

– They are constitutional authorities who are known throughout Australia.

Senator BROWN:

– Did Mr. Menzies say that?

Senator GRANT:

– No, he actually said the reverse of that. I remind the honorable senator, however, that he was not quite right in the arguments that he addressed to the Privy Council. If the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition have any meaning at all, they mean he is in favour of complete unification. Does the honorable senator deny that?

Senator Collings:

– I believe in unification.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not. We have been told that, in voting for this bill, we shall he voting merely to put the Commonwealth back into the position which it thought it occupied before the Privy Council’s decision in the James case.

Senator Collings:

– That is all that the bill proposes.

Senator GRANT:

– I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition considers himself a constitutional authority. I do not regard myself as such an authority, and I doubt very much whether the honorable senator knows any more than I do with respect to the legal effects of the proposed alteration of the Constitution. Section 92 is couched in clear and unmistakable language. That was the view held both by the High Court, until 1920, and the Privy Council. Until 1920 the meaning of that section was not contested. I feel sure that, if the High Court, as it was constituted during the first twenty years of federation, had been asked to interpret section 92, the decision would have gone against the Commonwealth. But, with the passing of time, and the alteration of the personnel of the High Court, a change of opinion in the direction of increasing the powers of the Commonwealth became manifest. For many years State instrumentalities were not considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and not until a change took place in the personnel of the High Court was it decided that State, instrumentalities were in the same position as ordinary industrial concerns. I am a States-righter, and proud of it. , I consider that the Commonwealth is overriding the provisions inserted in the Constitution for the protection of the States.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator does not believe in moving with the times.

Senator GRANT:

– I think it can be shown that the Commonwealth has not moved with the times. Marketing schemes were successfully operated before ‘ the enactment of the special . legislation that was rendered invalid by the decision of the Privy Council. History records that in the days of Joseph there was a system of orderly marketing in Egypt.

Senator Collings:

– Does the honorable senator believe that we should conduct our business as they did in those days ?

Senator GRANT:

– No. I am not perturbed by the sneers of honorable senators opposite who regard me as a Conservative. Our views on public questions differ considerably, but we are all endeavouring to do our best in the interests of the whole community. I have no ill-feelings against those who differ from me politically, because I believe that we are all trying to do what we believe to be right. The proposed amendment of the Constitution reads -

The provisions of the last preceding section shall not apply to laws with respect to marketing made by or With the authority of Parliament in the exercise of any powers vested in the Parliament by this Constitution.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies), in moving the second reading of the bill in the House of Representatives, said that no attempt had been made to define “marketing”, and that its interpretation would have to be left to the High Court. I disagree entirely with those who contend that if this .proposed alteration is adopted the Commonwealth will exercise only those powers which it thought it enjoyed prior to the decision of the PrivyCouncil in the James case. That may be the intention, but if the proposal be adopted by the people, the Commonwealth will have the right to exercise powers much more extensive than those which it has used previously. This proposed alteration will give to the Commonwealth full powers in respect of marketing, without reference to any State authority, including the power to prohibit the transfer of goods from one State to another. A short time ago, the importation of butter into Tasmania was absolutely prohibited, because it was said that, at the time, there was sufficient butter in that State; but shortly after imports into Tasmania were prohibited, exports from Tasmania to the mainland were also prohibited, because there was sufficient butter in Victoria or some other State. Regulations controlling the movement of butter were enforced, not by a government department, but by a limited company formed in Sydney under the name of the Commonwealth Equalization Butter Committee Limited. This company has no statutory authority, yet on the mere say-so of this body, the Commonwealth meekly enforced regulations preventing the free movement of butter between the States. This company had the impertinence to try to collect an excise duty of 3d., and compel the use of an excise stamp of that amount on all dairy butter sold, and the Commonwealth allowed it to do so. Is that the way in which the people should be treated?

Senator J B Hayes:

– The rate was later reduced to 2d. per lb.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes ; but the butter bad to bear an excise duty stamp before it could be sold. The collection of excise, is a responsibility solely within the province of the Commonwealth Government. Some small dairy-farmers on the Tasman Peninsula, living right back in the bush, who produce four of five lb. of butter weekly, were in the habit of bartering small quantities of butter and cream for flour, tea, sugar and other necessaries. But this equalization committee, through a local committee, instructed these poor farmers that they were not to dispose of their product in that way, and employed a barrister at a high cost to fight the case against them. Costs amounting to a large sum, covering a few cases, were incurred, and because they could not pay their fines, a squad of police took these unfortunate people to the Hobart gaol a few clays before Christmas. Is that fair play?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator has not given us all the facts.

Senator GRANT:

– Can the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) supply additional information? I have stated the position as I know it.

Senator Millen:

– That happened before the use of such a comprehensive term as “ marketing “ waa contemplated.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes, but what power will such an authority exercise if this proposal be adopted? “Marketing” covers all phases of buying and selling, and bodies such as I have mentioned will be able to follow produce from the first stages of production until it reaches the consumer’s table. Why should the Commonwealth assist the State Governments to harass unfortunate people such as those whom I have mentioned?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is obvious that the Commonwealth cannot do what the honorable senator says has been done.

Senator GRANT:

– A committee was formed with the support of the Commonwealth Government to prevent the free movement of produce between the- States.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Such a body must be acting under legislative power conferred by a State, because the Commonwealth cannot interfere with the production of butter.

Senator GRANT:

– Local boards take instructions from the company formed in Sydney which does not act under any statutory authority.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– There must be some statutory authority under which the producers mentioned by the honorable senator were prosecuted.

Senator GRANT:

– Power is exercised by a body appointed under a State law.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Then the prosecutions were under a State law.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes, but the Commonwealth co-operates with the States.

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is an entirely different story. The honorable ‘senator led us to believe that the people mentioned were prosecuted as a result of Commonwealth action.

Senator GRANT:

– I am not blaming the Commonwealth Government; I am merely stating facts. Early this year when a poll of the dairy farmers in Tasmania waa taken a majority voted against a continuance of the present system of control. The members of the Opposition profess to protect- the rights of the consumers, but bodies such as I have mentioned could increase the price of butter to such an extent that it would be beyond the means of the average consumer. Surely those who provide thi; market for butter should not be exploited.

Senator MCLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does not the Parliament protect the consumer?

Senator GRANT:

– How can it?

Senator MCLEAY:

– The Parliament can disallow a regulation.

Senator GRANT:

– It is not a matter of regulations; a body which does not possess statutory authority decides what the price of butter shall be.

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– The Minister can refuse to issue a permit if such a body acts contrary to the wishes of the Parliament.

Senator GRANT:

– [ am not. alluding to exports. It cannot bc denied that this body fixes the price of butter in Australia.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Does Tasmania supply its own requirements of butter? T understand that in the winter supplies aru obtained from Victoria.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes. Butter is exported from Tasmania in the summer time and in the winter when the production in Tasmania is low we import from the mainland. At the conference of Commonwealth find State Ministers held in Adelaide in August last, the representatives of the weaker States opposed the proposals of the Commonwealth. At that conference, Mr. Butler, the Premier of South Australia, said -

Yesterday the Prime Minister informed us that the Commonwealth would never delegate to a State the right to impose an excise duty: yet under certain marketing schemes it has delegated to outside authorities - the Butter Board and so on - the right to impose excise charges.

Tt delegated to a non-statutory body the right, to impose excise duties in Tasmania for a time. Mr. Butler continued - 1 am certain as T stand here that if ever the imposition of the levy is tested it will he declared to be illegal. On principal I object to any Parliament delegating to an outside authority the right to tax the people of Australia. This is what Iws happened under various schemes which have been adopted in the past. No restriction was placed on the Butter

Board concerning what the excise should be. it has been said that the Board had complete power to impose a levy on the people which, in effect, is an excise.

He went on to say that he was opposed to the proposal to be submitted to the people by means of a referendum. Mr. Millington, the Minister for Works in the Labour Government of that State, said -

The Commonwealth says that there is no alternative to an amendment of the Constitution that will be considered; but I maintain that there is an alternative which will mak-i a solution of the problem possible. I shall not be convinced if the federal authorities object to an excise and bounty plan merely because it is unpopular. The Commonwealth Ministers do not say that help cannot be given to the producers in that way but there are serious political difficulties. There are serious difficulties in the way of everything a Government has to do if it shoulders its responsibilities. We encounter them in our State. We are being asked to scrap the Financial Emergency tax and if we were weak enough, 1 suppose we would agree.

Mr. Millington also objected to the Commonwealth’s proposal.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– He objected to any increase of the powers of this Parliament, but at that time the present proposal had not been put forward.

Senator GRANT:

– Mr. Millington said -

T do not believe any of the people oi Western Australia desire to be fed on products grown under sweated labour conditions . . . I shall not agree to the weaker States taking upon themselves the responsibility of giving to the Commonwealth Government additional powers that it does not require in order to solve this problem.

I maintain that additional power is being asked for, although the intention may not be to use it. Mr. Ogilvie stated at the conference -

Finally, and I think I am correctly interpreting the views of the people of Tasmania as a whole, we feel that a referendum would be overwhelmingly defeated. Much as I am opposed to an amendment of the Constitution, however, 1 would go back to the people of Tasmania and advise their acceptance of it if it were necessary and there were no alternatives.

As the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Payne sets out in clear and unmistakeable language such as that used in section 92, that no additional power shall be sought beyond that claimed to have been enjoyed prior to the decision of the Privy Council in the James case, I shall be prepared to support it, but I cannot accept the bill in its present form, and intend to vote against the second reading.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

– I was particularly interested in the remarks of Senator DuncanHughes, who mentioned some aspects of this matter concerning which there were certain doubts, but those doubts were completely removed from my mind by the lucid speech of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), who convinced me that the powers sought are absolutely necessary. Senator Duncan-Hughes expressed the opinion that the framers of the Constitution did not intend that this Parliament should pass marketing laws, or, otherwise, specific provision would have been made for it. Assuming that the framers of the Constitution intended that this Parliament should not deal with marketing, could they be blamed for their inability to foresee the wave of economic nationalism that has swept the world in the last few years, or the gap that exists in the Constitution? They could no more forsee these things than they could anticipate the tremendous advance in aviation and the invention of wireless broadcasting. Had they done so, provision would have been made for this Parliament to legislate also in regard to these matters. The Privy Council, in delivering its decision, did not concern itself with the merits of the case, and consider whether it was necessary for the powers sought to be in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament; it merely interpreted the language of section 92. In giving judgment against the Commonwealth, it realized that the Parliament had the remedy in its own hands. This bill is designed to provide the remedy.

I understood from Senator DuncanHughes that he would prefer that, instead of seeking an alteration of the Constitution, the Government should introduce legislation providing for an excise duty and the payment of a bounty. Certain State legislators have expressed a similar view. From the point of view of the States, that- may be a very good idea. This Parliament would remain the taxing authority, and would have to bear the odium of raising the tax, but, as it would hand the money over to the States, they would get all the credit attached to its expenditure. I believe that the Parliament which raises revenue should have the satisfaction of spending it. Senator DuncanHughes made an appeal to us to forget party politics, and to vote in accordance with what we believe to be correct. I am entirely in agreement with him. My party has not. directed me in any way in regard to this bill, and in supporting it I am merely guided by what seems to me to be right. The honorable senator then proceeded to quote from a speech by an eminent South Australian parliamentarian, in order to remind honorable senators of their duty. In the opinion of this legislator, a senator should have no interest other than that of his own State. I do not concur in that dictum. I came into this chamber as one of the senators from New South Wales, and, naturally, I desire to do all I can in the interests of that State; but this is the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and it is my duty to serve the people of Australia as a whole.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– Why has each State six members in this chamber?

Senator DEIN:

– To look after the interests of the States, to a degree, but the legislator whose remarks the honorable senator quoted, stated definitely that, unless an honorable senator is prepared to sacrifice all other interests to those of ‘ his own State, he has no right to remain a member of this chamber. A month or two ago we passed bills providing for grants to States. New South Wales received no benefit, but senators from that State voted in favour of a grant to South Australia of £1,330,000. According to the legislator mentioned by Senator Duncan-Hughes, New South Wales senators should have opposed that measure because their State received no benefit from it. During the last few years several marketing bills have been passed. I supported them because I thought that the schemes proposed were necessary. I believed the measures to be constitutional, but I supported them primarily because I thought that they were in the interests of the primary producers and of the people generally. To be con- si stent, I must take all steps possible to give to this Parliament the powers which it thought it had, prior to the recent decision of the Privy Council.

Senator Brown stated emphatically that the Labour party was treating the measure as a non-party one. That is not a fact. The federal Labour caucus, which, I suppose, is an insignificant body as far as Labour policy is concerned, decided to adopt a certain line of action, but instruction came from the executive of the Labour party in Queensland to the Labour representatives of that State in this Parliament to support the bill. The caucus, in order to escape from an awkward situation, merely excused the Queensland representatives from opposing the measure. On the other hand, the New South Wales Labour representatives were instructed to oppose the bill; therefore, it cannot be truthfully said that Labour is dealing with the measure on a non-party basis. Labour men in both Houses of this Parliament supported the marketing legislation, but the Labour Opposition in the House of Representatives declared that it would not support this bill. Who has ever heard of the Australian Labour Party declaring any issue to be a nonparty one? The reason advanced by it for not supporting this proposal in the other chamber was that it did not go far enough. Whether it does or not, the principle of the measure is clear and definite.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DEIN:

– In the last seven or eight years several bills have been passed by this Parliament to give to the primary producers certain advantages which were thought at the time to be in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the fact that the members of the Labour party, in the House of Representatives particularly, undividedly supported that legislation, they are now not prepared to support this bill to validate the existing marketing schemes. In my judgment, it will be difficult for them to explain to the electors their reasons for this inconsistency. Labour members claim also that they cannot support the bill because it does not go far enough. I contend that in principle this bill is cither right or wrong. If it is right it will remain so, whether anything else bc added or not. If ,it is wrong, the addition of something else, will not make it right. When the Opposition endeavoured to have the scope of this bill widened by the inclusion of other powers and the Government refused to accede to the request, Labour, with the exception of the Queensland section of the party, declared that it would relentlessly oppose the bill. Thus a remarkable position has been created in the part j’.

I intend to vote for the bill ; indeed I must do, so to be consistent with my attitude when the various marketing bills were before this chamber. In supporting the bill I am not actuated by party considerations; indeed as the measure has opponents as well as supporters within the ranks of the United Australia party, it can be said that as far as the United Australia party is concerned it is a non-party question. But my support is based on the conviction that the bill is in the .best interests of not only the primary producers, but the Australian community as a whole. Whilst I expect that it will pass through this chamber by a comfortable majority. I realize the difficulty of convincing the electors that it is necessary. Notwithstanding that difficulty, I have no alternative but to be true to my conscience and wholeheartedly support the bill in this chamber. I shall also do all that I can to assure an affirmative vote when the issue is placed before the electors. The difficulty will arise not from the nature of the powers sought, but from the political considerations that have actuated our opponents in the Parliament. They say definitely that they cannot support the bill because it does not include other powers, but I venture the opinion, that if the Government had included additional powers the Opposition would have looked for some other excuse for opposing the bill. Conceivably it would have still said. “No, it. does not go far enough. The No. 1 plank on our platform is unification, and if the Government submits a proposal to put unification into effect we shall support it.”

Senator Collings:

– Who said that?

Senator DEIN:

– Nobody has said it. I am expressing ian opinion based on the attitude of the Labour party over anumberofyears,andIsay that if the additional powers had been included in this bill the Labour party, excluding the Queensland section, would have opposed it. because it did not go far enough. The members of the Opposition would have demanded unification as the price of their support, indeed, 1 believe that if the Government introduced a bill to make a constitutional alteration that would enable the institution of unification, the Labour party would even oppose that. It would say, “ Unification may be all right if controlled by our own party, but controlled by the present Government it would be unsafe.” The Labour party’s attitude to-day is consistent with the attitude it always adopts, namely, party first ; everything else last.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- When listening to Senator Brown I was reminded of that line in Mark Antony’s oration over the corpse of Caesar, “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” Senator Brown turned it around and said, “I come to praise the bill, not to bury it,” but forgot to praise it. At any rate, he damned it with such faint praise that if his speech had lasted much longer he would have damned it entirely.

Three points arise for consideration in this bill. The first is: should this Parliament, or any other Australian parliament, or all the parliaments combined, have power to deal with marketing. Should some authority in Australia be able to deal witha matter of this kind? Before federation the individual States had this power entirely, and since federation it had been thought, until recently, that the Commonwealth and the States, combined, possessed it. The Privy Council has decided otherwise. Will any one say that it is not necessary for some authority - for the Commonwealth, or the States, or the Commonwealth and the States in combination - to have this power? Whether the power, wherever residing, should he used to the full extent isa different matter, but, some parliament should have the full power of government over all things which affect the people of the Commonwealth. As the result of the Privy Council’s decision, we have found that neither the States nor the Commonwealth nor

States and Commonwealth together, have power to deal withmarketing. The two other aspects - whether there should be a home-consumption price and whether there should be orderly marketing - do not enter into consideration. I have only to ask myself whether this power of control should be vested in the Australian governments.

Senator Hardy:

– The homeconsumption price is important.

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– If this power is not sought for orderly marketing it is not necessary.

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes it is. Whether orderly marketing be necessary or not, some authority should have power to deal with any matter which affects the welfare of the people of Australia.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– This bill does not deal with such a matter.

Senator LECKIE:

– It relates to a particular matter with which we have not the power to deal, although, until recently, we thought that we were constitutionally competent to deal with it. There may be other matters, as yet undiscovered, in relation to which the Commonwealth Parliament is powerless. Of course, this bill is designed to enable the Parliament to deal also with the home-consumption price and orderly marketing. The primary object of this bill is to continue to deal with these matters as we have been dealing with them hitherto. The proposed alteration takes no power away from the State Parliaments, but gives to them a power which they have not got at the present time. It enables the States, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, to carry on duties which both may think to be in the interests of the people. To talk about taking rights from the States is to put the proposal into reverse. The States are to be given powers which they do not possess at present,and the Commonwealth will not be able to exercise its powers unless at the request of the States.

Senator Grant:

– Where is that stated ?

Senator LECKIE:

– That is in the bill, and it is in the explanations of the bill given by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) and the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce).

Senator Grant:

– Ihave heard other explanations from constitutional authorities.

Senator LECKIE:

– Yes, because the honorable senator wanted to listen to them. He does not go to the Minister and take his opinion.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The Minister in this chamber did not say so.

Senator LECKIE:

– I do not know who are the constitutional authorities who say that we can deal with these problems under the excise and bounty powers, but I do not intend to agree to a system which involves the enactment of excise duties and bounty legislation from time to time. I emphasize that this bill takes no power from the States, but gives power to them, and they should be welcoming the fact that the Commonwealth Parliament is trying to restore to them the right to legislate for the orderly marketing of primary products and the disposing of them to the best advantage. I regard this as an opportunity for the people of Australia to decide whether or not there shall be home-consumption prices. If the people decide against this alteration, I shall take it that they do not desire that there shall be home-consumption prices in Australia. That is the logical way in which to look at it. Alternative methods of achieving, orderly marketing and homeconsumption prices will not then enter into the matter. If the people, at the referendum, say that they will not give these powers to the Commonwealth and the States, I, for one, shall take it that they do not believe in, and will not have, home-consumption prices.

Senator Badman:

– What about manufactured goods?

Senator LECKIE:

– There is no homeconsumption price for manufactures.

Senator Badman:

– Of course there is. What does the tariff give!

Senator LECKIE:

– No homeconsumption price for manufactured goods is fixed by the Government or the manufacturers. I warn the Country party that if there are any more provocative speeches such as that made yesterday by Senator Abbott, in which he sneered at the secondary industries, a groat deal of damage will be done to this cause. It is time that the continual sneering at secondary industries ceased. The primary in dustries, should realize that they are copartners with the secondary industries in creating the wealth that makes Australia prosperous, and that the manufacturers play an equal part, if not the greater part, in creating that wealth. Provocative speeches such as that delivered by Senator Abbott merely arouse antagonism in those engaged in secondary industries, and those who make them do their cause no good.

Senator Abbott:

– It was only provocative to the honorable senator, not to anybody else.

Senator LECKIE:

– The secondary industries would be poor spirited indeed if they did not resent Senator Abbott’s speech. I advise him, and others like him, that if they desire this proposal to be carried they should not antagonize their best friends.

Senator Abbott:

– I advise the honorable senator not to antagonize the primary producers.

Senator LECKIE:

– Those engaged in secondary industries constitute the best market for Australian primary products.

Senator Abbott:

– I appealed to both sections to pull together.

Senator LECKIE:

– No; the honorable senator issued a warning. His speech was most provocative. Unless there is a realization of, the need for a balanced economy, and for those engaged in both primary and secondary industries tobe co-partners in creating wealth and prosperity, this country will never progress.

Senator Abbott:

– Thatis just what I said. The honorable senator could not have been listening to me.

Senator LECKIE:

– The great bulk of the wealth of this country is provided by its secondary industries. During the last three or four years there has been greatly increased employment in them, thereby providing a greater home market for Australian primary products. Had the honorable senator realized that truth he would not have uttered some of the insinuations and innuendoes in which he indulged yesterday.

One would think from what had been said abirut interstate freetrade that there was, in fact, freetrade between the States. The existence of regulations restricting transport across State boTdera, for instance, is evidence that freetrade does not obtain to the extent that is believed. A manufacturer in New South “Wales or Victoria who wishes to send his good3 across the border cannot do so unless his price is lower than that of the local manufacturer by 10 or 12 per cent., or even more. InSouth Australia the position is even worse. There is no Australian sentiment in this matter. I do not complain about some States being locally-minded, but it was generally expected that all manufacturers and sellers of goods in Australia would be placed n the same footing, irrespective of the State in which their business was situated. That, however, is not so, and when honorable senators speak of absolute freetrade in Australia they speak of something that does not exist. There is no freetrade in regard even to some Commonwealth activities. For instance, the Postal Department does not treat Australia as one community, but as a number of States. In the fixing of charges for telegrams and parcels State boundaries are recognized.

Senator Arkins:

– The present position is absurd, and should be altered.

Senator LECKIE:

– I shall support the. bill, because I am of the opinion that the powers which it seeks to obtain for the Commonwealth are necessary, and because both Commonwealth and States should be able to do what is necessary in the interests of the country. The granting to the Commonwealth of the powers sought in this bill, so far from detracting from the powers of the States, will increase them. For my own part, and on behalf of those with whom I am associated, I shall recommend to the electors the granting to the Commonwealth of powers necessary to ensure orderly marketing. I am not so pessimistic as are some other honorable senators regarding the appeal to the people, for I cannot imagine that the primary producers of the smaller States will vote against the Government’s proposal. I could understand opposition being offered to it by Victoria and New South Wales, which are more highly industrialized than are the other States; but, that primaryproducing States should oppose it, is beyond my comprehension. During recent years the costs of Australian manufacturers have increased by £3,000,000 or more a year as a result of the fixing of a home-consumption price for wheat and other primary products.

Senator Guthrie:

– Butter prices have been lower here than abroad.

Senator LECKIE:

– Contributions to assist wheat-growers and other primary producers have added millions of pounds to the costs of Australian manufacturers during the last three or four years, but they have not complained, because they realize that the primary producers of this country are their best customers, and that, if their best customers go to the wall, they, too, will suffer. They realize, also, that, in regard to a homeconsumption price, the primary producers have acted fairly, and therefore the manufacturers of this country will stand behind the Government and do their utmost to secure an affirmative vote on its proposal.

Senator ARKINS:
New South Wales

– The members of the Opposition in this chamber wholeheartedly support this measure, because they believe that an alteration of the Constitution is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the great primary producers of Queensland, both now and in the future. I agree with them. Every member of the Opposition who has spoken has offered to travel throughout Queensland in an endeavour to convince the people of that State of the need for an alteration of the Constitution in order to allow marketing to be regulated inthe interests of the people engaged in primary industries.

Senator Collings:

– In the interests of Australia.

Senator ARKINS:

– I ask honorable senators of the Opposition to enlarge their vision, and become Commonwealthminded. There is no need for them to convince the electors of Queensland, because the three political parties in that State are united in a common desire for an amendment of the Constitution. The honorable senators should go further afield, as apostles of a new evangel. I suggest that they visit New South Wales, because, so far as I am aware, not one member of the Labour party in that State is prepared to. tell the people that an alteration of the Constitution is necessary. Indeed, they need not go even so far as New South Wales, for even in this building there is an opportunity for them to do good work. In the councils of their own party let themrise and say that it is essential that the Constitution be altered.

Senator Collings:

– Why should we do the job of honorable senators representing New South Wales?

Senator ARKINS:

– There is no need for the honorable senator and his colleagues to convince the electors of Queensland, for he has told us that they will be overwhelmingly in favour of the Government’s proposal. The honorable senator spoke of his bravery. 0*n his own showing, no courage is required to advocate in Queensland the carrying of the Government’s proposal. But let him take his courage in hie hands and enter hostile territory in New South Wales.

Senator Brown:

– The honorable senator would have us be Daniels in the lion’s den?

Senator ARKINS:

– I suggest that members of the Opposition, instead of being small provincial Queenslanders, should become brave Australians, and, discarding all humbug and camouflage, advocate the carrying of the Government’s proposal. If this bc a subject which affects Australia as a whole, it is big enough to be preached by them beyond the borders of their own State. Honorable senators have been urged to treat the Government’s proposal as being above party; I suggest that it should be treated as above the interests of any State, and as of Commonwealth-wide importance. I ask Honorable senators of the Opposition to do the big thing, the Australian thing, and on public platforms in New South Wales, Victoria and the other States advocate the carrying of the Government’s proposal. I shall now leave that aspect of the subject.

Senator Collings:

– Hear, hear ! It is the honorable senator’s job to address the electors in New South Wales.

Senator ARKINS:

– It is not a job for honorable senators from New South Wales alone, but for all big Australians. In regard to State rights, I shall not say more than that, in his lucid explanation, the Leader of the Senate said the first and the last words. He is the last of the active public men who were in the heat of the con troversy in connexion with the struggle for federation. His explanation is acceptable to me and to: all Australians.

Senator Grant:

– To all Australians?

Senator ARKINS:

– I said Australians, not Tasmanians; there is a distinction in that while the Tasmanian is of Australia, he is not always a big Australian. Since the Great War practically every country of the world has formulated constructive plans for the control of the marketing of primary products. I have in my possession a book, World Trade Barriers with Relation to American Agriculture, issued by the Government of the United States of America at the request of the Senate of that country. The information was obtained after a world-wide survey of postwar international conditions which affected American agriculture. Upon studying it, one realizes many things that otherwise might remain unknown to him. It states -

International trade, including that in agricultural products, is under the influence of more widespread governmental intervention than ever before in modern times. The measures by which this influence is exerted upon agriculture apply either directly as agricultural measures or indirectly through other branches of economic life.

In its present extreme form, such intervention is a recent development. Indeed, in several countries restrictions on international trade and other forms of intervention affecting farm products were either non-existent or relatively unimportant until the last few years. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Denmark, were practically on a free-trade basis. Others, such as Argentina and Canada, Were so predominantly on an export basis for agricultural products that tariffs and other import restrictions would have been largely ineffective. Apart from the ordinary scientific and technical aids, government assistance in such countries was primarily directed toward developing, new producing areas and securing cheaper access to outside markets.

Since the beginning of the world economic depression, however, governmental intervention has been particularly marked in agriculture, owing to the special severity of the agrarian crisis. Not only have those countries that had previously given government support to home agriculture , greatly intensified their activities in this direction, but other countries also have adopted similar policies. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Irish Free State, and Belgium have abandoned, at least temporarily, their free-trade or low-tariff policies, and are now definitely endeavouring to aid their farmers either by means of import restrictions or, in the case of products on an export basis, by bounties or other means.

Honorable senators will, therefore, realize that practically every country of the world made some attempt to control the marketing and production of various primary products; those which have by definite legisla tive enactment attempted to control prices of various commodities are : Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chili, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Esthonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Roumania, Southern Rhodesia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Union of South Africa, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. In those circumstances, do honorable senators expect that Australia, which is one of the outstanding primary producing and exporting countries, can afford not to take similar action and compete on the open markets of the world without exercising some control over the marketing of its exportable produce ?

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Control has not been successful in many of the countries cited by the honorable senator.

Senator ARKINS:

– No; but it has been successful in some of them. On no occasion, to my knowledge, have expert authorities suggested that any of those countries did wrong in adopting such measures of control.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Does the honorable senator contend that the United States of America was successful in controlling the production of wheat? That is an outstanding example of the failure of control.

Senator ARKINS:

– It is not an example of failure of control of marketing and prices. In spite of the set backs which have been experienced in this connexion in various countries, they are unable to-day to refrain from making an effort to fix prices or to control the marketing of primary products.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I agree with that.

Senator ARKINS:

– I am gratified to have the honorable senator’s support in that connexion. Much of the legislation to control prices and marketing has had to be recast because in its initial stages it was purely experimental. In the United States of America, control of marketing and prices became a major problem, because wheat was practically unsaleable. The same position arose in Canada. After the pooling system had been successful for a year or two in that dominion, control of it was taken over by the Government, and failure followed.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Seasonal conditions provided a corrective.

Senator ARKINS:

– Yes, but even if the seasonal conditions had not done so, it is likely that the methods of control would have been altered. The principal difficulty in respect of control which confronts the United States of America, Canada and Australia relates to external, not interna], conditions. Practically every country has erected rigid trade barriers against the importation of primary products from other States, and this restriction of trade has created a major problem. Germany, Italy, and nearly all of the Middle European States will not allow primary products from the new world to enter their markets, lest their own producers be ruined. This restriction creates a serious problem which must be overcome. I commend to the notice of honorable senators a publication. Markets and Men. by Mr. J. W. F. Rowe, M.A., of Cambridge University. In conjunction with other authorities about two years ago, this gentleman delivered a series of talks over the British broadcasting system on the subject of markets. According to this writer, this practice of trade restriction is a definite phenomenon which has grown up in recent years in respect of, not only agricultural, but also many other products. Honorable senators must not overlook the fact that primary products other than agricultural - for instance, silk, rubber, tin, copper and aluminium - are subject to forms of control. Strangely enough, control in respect of rubber and tin was wisely exercised at the direct instigation of the “British Government. It was recognized that unless such action were taken, Great Britain’s interests in the rubber market would entirely collapse. Control was immediately exercised over the rubber plantations, with the result that ultimately Great Britain controlled the rubber market of .the world against the United States of America, and the price has been more equitable than at any time in the history of rubber marketing.

Senator Grant:

– That was not governmental control.

Senator ARKINS:

– The honorable senator cannot dispute the fact that in Malaya the control was imposed at the direct instigation of the British Government; ultimately it resulted in great benefit, not alone to the British Empire, but to the whole world, by lowering the price of this commodity. Much the same position obtained in respect of tin. At one stage tin became a drug on the market of the world. It had no value, and the vast resources of tin in the islands to the north of Australia consequently presented a serious economic difficulty. At the prices which then prevailed, it was not worth while to mine the tin for the purpose of marketing it. As in the case of rubber the British Government again appealed to the Malayan authorities and recommended that some form of control should be instituted. At the same time an appeal was made to the Dutch Goverment and this was finally acceded to.

Senator Grant:

– That was an international arrangement; there was no statutory authority.

Senator ARKINS:

– But it was made at the instigation of the British Government. The outstanding fact in connexion with the control of tin was that this mineral was kept off the market until, ultimately, the demand for it grew, and the price consequently increased. At the present time the control of production of tin in Malaya is regarded as being one of the major triumphs of British policy in relation to the economics of the colonies and dominions. There again, we are unable to get away from the fact that all the primary industries are in such a position that they must have some form of protection. I do not for one moment believe that all the difficulties of the primary producer will be solved by the intervention of governments, and the institution of orderly marketing. In my opinion, a number of the difficulties of the agriculturists can be solved only on their own holdings by a better manipulation of their lands, the improvement of their stock, and the utilization of the most efficient implements.

Senator Guthrie:

– Mildura is producing the best dried fruits in the world at the present time. ;

Senator ARKINS:

– I do not place all primary products in such a category, but, to instance one, I am told by qualified men that, in connexion with the marketing of our meat, we should begin our reforms at home by aiming to improve the quality of die stock. I quite agree with that. Australia cannot hope to stand aloof from world, developments.

Senator Grant:

– We have our tin quota.

Senator ARKINS:

– That is so. In the exporting of our primary products, we must unquestionably have in mind the world situation and exercise some form of control over exports.

Senator Grant:

– Such control could be exercised without government interference.

Senator ARKINS:

– The . tin quota was arranged at the instigation of a government.

Senator GRANT:

– I noticed a report in to-day’s press about the International Tin Committee.

Senator ARKINS:

– But government initiative set the movement on foot which resulted in the arrangement of tin quotas for various countries. Australia must provide some me:ins by which its products may be exported in an orderly fashion. It is desirable, also, that an unquestioned authority should be set up to fix standards of quality and determine the volume of exports to overseas markets from time to time. The judgment which resulted in the dislocation of our overseas marketing arrangements was obtained at the instance of a very few persons who had in mind their own interests. These persons were quite ready to infringe the rights of other people at any time so long as their own interests were advanced. The whole community needs protection against such individuals. We all know what . has happened on various occasions in the past when the people of one State have endeavoured to organize their marketing to the advantage of the producers. They have almost invariably been subjected to the piratical action of persona engaged in similar industries, in other States. Apparently, nothing that the Commonwealth Government can do under its present legislative authority can prevent such action

Senator Grant:

– The Commonwealth has full power over export marketing.

Senator ARKINS:

– Surely the honorable senator realizes that under existing world conditions it is almost impossible to regard separately the home and export markets. A measure of control must be exercised over both if equilibrium is to be maintained. Senator Grant must be aware that -the effective control of the marketing of dried fruits, butter, wheat, and, in fact, almost every primary commodity requires the supervision of both the home and the overseas markets. In the present unfortunate state of world affairs, our home price is nearly always better than the export price, and it is essential that something shall be done to control marketing so that an equitable price shall be made possible to all consumers for all their products. The time may come when even Tasmania will require some assistance in the marketing of its potatoes, but without an effective amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution, intervention by the Federal Government will be impossible. The same may be true to some extent of the apple and pear industries.

One essential of any effective marketing arrangement is the maintenance of standards. Certain individuals with a high sense of honour do their utmost to maintain a high standard of production, but other individuals whose outlook is limited to the few extra shillings that they may bo able to gain by some sharp practice, pay very little regard to quality. Senator Grant seems to think that the introduction of this bill indicates an overbearing attitude on the part of the larger States towards the smaller States. I cannot understand how he has formed that opinion. If I imagined for a moment that anything in this bill could be construed as a. threat to the smaller States, I should resist it with all my power. Rut the reverse is actually true. If this proposed alteration of the Constitution be endorsed, the people of the smaller States will actually reap more benefit from it than will the people in the larger States, for usually the people in the larger States have a better home market; an examination would reveal that they obtain better prices for their commodities than do the people of the smaller States, because of the larger proportion they are able to sell locally. For this reason, it is of little use for certain honorable senators to wax indignant about the attitude adopted by the larger States in certain directions. It is generally recognized that organized action is necessary to protect our secondary industries and also the workers of this country. Abuses occur, of course, and until human nature changes they are likely to occur. But no one would deny that the protection of secondary industries and also the protection of the workers are absolutely necessary to our national wellbeing. Surely it is not to be assumed that a majority of madmen will be elected to Parliament who will run riot in their legislative policy. No one desires to upset the equilibrium of the community.

Senator Grant:

– We had an illustration of that sort of thing in New South Wales a few years ago.

Senator ARKINS:

– That is so; but when the democracy was outraged it expressed itself at the ballot-box- and dismissed those who had outraged it. The democracy still survives. If the proposed amendment of the Constitution be endorsed by the electors, and at some time in the ‘future foolish use is made of the added power vested in the Commonwealth Parliament, the people may be trusted to right, at the first opportunity, any wrong tha t is done. It is not likely that we shall allow irrational communists or socialists to wreck out national prosperity. Our own forbears in Great Britain have no written constitution, but the people of’ the United Kingdom have worked out their own destiny with common sense and wisdom, and no attempt has been made to fetter them. Our Constitution was modelled on the Constitution of the United States of America, but the people of that republic have not ‘found it impossible to devise properly-organized marketing schemes. Some of the States of America afford the finest examples in the world of orderly marketing arrangements. The attempts that have been made through the appropriate judicial channels of America to destroy those schemes have in some instances at least, failed to achieve their objective. Surely no honorable gentleman of this chamber would deny to the people of Australia the necessary legislative power to enable them properly to organize their affairs. Great Britain has in the last few years been facing some of the most difficult economic problems of its history in relation to primary industry, but it has- done so with courage and determination. Markets have been organized, quotas fixed and trade treaties made with Empire countries and ako with other countries, with definite advantage to the -general community - That is essential, because we are now living in an age of rapid transport, not only within the Commonwealth, but also to countries overseas. I am satisfied that progressive people such as we have in Australia are willing to give the Commonwealth Parliament sufficient power to help those in need. I am fully convinced that the primary producers in Australia have benefited under a system of orderly marketing, and that an overwhelming majority wish the method previously in operation to be continued. Those who have had any experience of the system under which primary produce has been handled and marketed under governmental or semigovernmental control, know that it has not interfered with private enterprise, nor infringed the rights of organizations or individuals. Under a system of cooperation producers are prepared to work in the interests of the industries with which they are associated, and of the country generally. No valid objection can be offered to the proposal, which the Government proposes to submit to the people by means of a referendum, to protect the rights of primary producers in the Commonwealth. The value of primary production cannot be over-estimated, more particularly when we remember that the returns from the commodities which we export provide the Commonwealth with overseas funds, so essential in governmental finance. As other countries have erected trade barriers in respect of wheat, meat, rice, cotton, wool, sugar and coffee, we are justified in protecting those engaged in producing primary commodities in Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– What countries have erected trade barriers?

Senator ARKINS:

– Germany and Italy in endeavouring to become selfcontained are prohibiting the imports of commodities which we produce. Great Britain once opened its doors to the products of all countries, but it has now altered its policy, and has appointed a Minister for Marketing, with a separate portfolio, to work in the interests of the primary producers; in that country. In these circumstances, the Commonwealth Government is justified in asking the people to agree to an alteration of the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the States, to conduct a system of orderly marketing, to enable the primary producers to obtain a fair return for their labour. Believing that we had the power to control marketing, the system has been carried on for years without any objection from some of those now opposing the Government’s proposal. Indeed, some of them have taken advantage of the subsidies and bounties paid without offering the slightest objection to the system under which they were granted. The Government is now only asking for the power to continue that form of protection which has been afforded in the past. The Commonwealth and the States should assist those engaged in the important work of primary production. The Constitution should therefore be so altered as to allow that assistance to be given by the passing of legislation which would facilitate the organizing and arranging of marketing requirements, and would in that way preserve to Australian primary producers privileges which are enjoyed by primary producers in almost every other country in the world.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– During the delivery of an excellent speech, Senator Arkins challenged the members of the Opposition in this chamber, who represent a State where an affirmative vote is assured, to visit New South Wales and some of the other States where there is strong opposition to the Government’s proposal, in an endeavour to convince the people that an alteration of the Constitution is in the interests of the nation. I suggest that some honorable senators who support the Government and who have advocated the passing ofthe bill should also visit those States in which they think an adverse vote may be recorded. This measure is supposed to be a non-party matter, and the members of at least two of the political parties are divided upon it.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Surely not the Labour party?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– The members of the Labour party are divided. The honorable senator will recall that when a tariff debate was under consideration in this chamber the Government, in order to secure the passage of certain items, had to depend upon the support of the members of the Federal Labour party and of the NewSouth Wales Labour party. Ever since Labour governments have been in power in Queensland they have taken the primary producers under their wing by increasing governmental control over primary production and marketing. From time to time members of the Labour party have been charged with opposing the farmers’ interests, but that charge cannot be substantiated, particularly as the Labour Government in Queensland, by appointing boards and pools to control production and marketing, has done more to assist the primary producers in that State than any antiLabour government has ever clone. Thirty-five years ago, a friend of mine who built a butter factory, told me that the farmers in the district in which he lived were too cowardly or too cautious to start a factory on their own account. They believed in co-operation, but they were not sufficiently courageous to spend the money to build a factory. As a speculator, he incurred certain risks by building a factory, but when it was in successful operation he was askedby those who had declined to assist him in the enterprise to sell it at their own figure and go out of business.

During the la3t 30 years, the principle of co-operation among farmers all over the world has grown to such an extent that it now covers, not only production, but also marketing. The Labour party in Queens land, for more than twenty years, has helped the farmers in the marketing of their produce. At first this was done in the teeth of bitter opposition from the political parties represented by honorable members opposite, but now those parties in Queensland support our policy. In fact, they have adopted our legislation as part of the fixed policy of the State of Queensland. That is why Senators Foll, Cooper and Crawford will be found supporting this bill. They know bow much it means to the farmers.

Senator Dein:

– Why does not the Labour party in the other States support the bill?

Senator MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Labour in the other States has taken a different view. In any case, we may ask why the bill is not supported by Senator DuncanHughes and Senator Millen, both of whom have spoken against it. They are the champions of private enterprise. They boast that the wool industry, for instance, has never required any government assistance, either in production or i n marketing. The great mercantile interests hope, of course, that the wool industry will be able to continue without the introduction of orderly marketing, otherwise, like Othello, their occupation will be gone.

Senator Guthrie:

– What good could it do the wool-growers if the present system of free marketing were abolished?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not say that, just at the present time, it would benefit them at all. The fact remains, however, that other primary industries have sought government assis- tance, and have received it, the wheatgrowers in particular. Nevertheless, certain interests concerned with primary production are bitterly opposed to any interference with the old system of marketing, and it is from such interests that the opposition to this bill has come. Those middlemen who have made money out of the present system of marketing naturally do not want to see their occupation disappear, and they are still a powerful force in the land. In Queensland, we have been taught for the last 25 years that the working farmer is the natural ally of the worker in the city, and that it is in the interests of both that the middleman, who handles the farmers’ produce, should be eliminated. Whether wron persons are called produce merchants or speculators, their profits add to the cost of distribution, and make the people’s food dearer. When they have been eliminated, the consumers get cheaper supplies, and the farmers obtain a greater share of the wealth they produce. I suppose the farmers of Queensland are no less astute than those of other States, and they agree that the marketing legislation, for which the Labour party in Queensland was largely responsible, has conferred upon them tremendous benefits. Even the Conservative party, when it was a power for three years, made no attempt to disturb that legislation. The farmers wish to see its scope extended, and whenever they have the opportunity to express their opinion, they vote by a large majority in favour of still closer cooperation among producers. That is why the system of co-operative marketing has lasted and extended in Queensland, until it has become a model, not only for Australia, but also for the whole world. That explains why the Labour party in Queensland is in favour of this bill, even though in other States the party opposes it. In the other States Labour has not been in office continuously for long periods, and there has been no opportunity to demonstrate the beneficial effects of . co-operative marketing. States other than Queensland have not had the great advantage of a Labourfarmer government in office over a long period. The; representatives of Labour in other States largely represent packed urban areas, where the most important question in the minds of the people, particularly in times of depression when every penny counts, is cheaper foodstuffs. Labour members mostly come from city electorates and industrial districts. At the last election, when the Labour party formulated a policy designed to improve the financial economy of the people, it did not have the wide support, and consequently, has not now the large party to which its broad, national policy entitled it.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Try that policy at the next election.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I should say that its presentation on the last occasion is one of the reasons why the honorable senator was returned to this chamber. The Labour party iB the only political group that is prepared to submit a plan designed to improve the undesirable conditions obtaining in this country. The conflicting views expressed by opponents of the Labour party-

Senator Collings:

– Are inexplicable.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– To . some extent I think that I can give the reason for them. I hope that the bill will be passed, because its ‘object is to restore the status quo prior to the decision of . the Privy Council in the James case. The various States, and particularly Queeusland, have endeavoured for years to assist the primary producers. Even before Labour governments, came into power steps were taken in the States to organize the primary producers. The farmers are not prepared to support the policy of socialism per se; they do not desire to appear as being other than capitalistic minded. Yet, as far as their own interests are concerned, they are socialists at heart, and recognize tho advantages of organization of their own industries.

Senator MCLEAY:

– The dried fruits marketing legislation is not a socialistic scheme

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I should imagine that the honorable senator from South Australia is glad that in the James case the Privy Council decided against the Commonwealth Government.

Senator McLeay:

– Oh, no!

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Then I 6hall be glad to hear the honorable senator’s opinion regarding this bill. I fail to see any good ground for opposition to a proposal designed to validate the orderly marketing legislation. Organized marketing has been in operation in Australia for twenty years. No fundamental alteration of the law is contemplated. Whilst I agree that Imperial ties ‘should not be severed, the Commonweath Government should not be required to appeal to the law-givers of another country.

Senator HERBERT Hays:

– The James case was not a dispute; regarding the law of another country.

Senator J. V. MACDONALD We can hardly distinguish between the law and the interpreters df the law. Is u fair to the people of Australia that, after a dispute has been adjudicated upon by the highest tribunal in this country, a dissatisfied litigant can take his troubles to lawyers in a far-away land ? The practice has upset not only the law, but also, in the present instance, the whole of the business of this country, and if something is not done to remedy the position the cost will be scores of millions of pounds annually. I believe that the majority of honorable senators will agree that Australia is more democratic than is Great Britain.

Honorable senators interjecting,

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– Honorable senators, who apparently do not wish to be told anything that does not accord with their own views, remind me of a story . that I once heard. During the Civil War in the United States of America, a tramp, who some years before the war had followed the occupation of woodcutter in Illinois with General U. S. Grant, approached a farmer’s house seeking refreshment. He was met by the farmer, who regarded him rather diffidently, and demurred when the request for a little refreshment was preferred, until the tramp said, “I was with Grant- “ - upon which he was immediately made welcome. The farmer and his wife showered blessings on him, gave him a decent tea, provided him with a comfortable bed, and after breakfast in the morning gave him money and wished him well on his way. Several times he had rather shamefacedly endeavoured to add to his original statement “ I was with Grant”, but had been immediately silenced, and told enthusiastically by the farmer, “We have a son who is serving under Grant”. Finally the tramp got away from his hosts, but at a safe distance of twenty yards he was determined to complete his interrupted remark, and shouted back - .

I was with Grant in Illinois,

Three years before the war.

If honorable senators will allow me to continue my remarks, I may add that the democracy of Great Britain is quite different from the democracy of Australia. British lawyers are more archaic than are ours, and their minds are less plastic. They have not a full knowledge of this country, hence they arc conservative in their judgments upon anything Australian.

Senator ALLAN MACDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Would the honorable senator deny us the right of appeal to the Privy Council ?

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not think that we should appeal to any tribunal outside this country.

Senator Brennan:

– The High Court suggested that this case should go to the Privy Council.

Senator J V MACDONALD:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1932

– I do not care what the High Court suggested, but hold firmly to my opinion that Australian law-givers should have the last word on Australian laws. The subject of a 40-hour week is prominently before Australia at the moment, and the opportunity should be taken to obtain from the people a pronouncement on it. An attempt to widen the scope of the proposed referendum was made in the House of Representatives, but unfortunately failed. We have’ to consider the interests of the artisans and other workers of the cities and towns, as well as those of the working farmers. I hope that the bill will pass. I shall do all that lies in my power to have the referendum carried, not only in Queensland, but also in the other States.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guthrie) adjourned.

page 1848

BILLS RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) read a first time: -

States Grants Bill, 1936.

Defence Equipment Bill, 1936.

Senate adjourned at 3.52p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 November 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1936/19361113_senate_14_152/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant