Senate
26 July 1946

17th Parliament · 3rd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown)took thechair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3177

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Land Settlement of ex-Ser vicemen .

SenatorFINLAY.- Will the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction inform the Senate how many applications havebeen received from ex-servicemen in South Australia for assistance in connexion with wheatfarming or other rural pursuits? “Who is responsible for the selection of land for the settlement of ex-servicemen,and for the training and placing of them on the land? Has any delayoccurred in settling them in rural pursuits, and, if so, what are the causes?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– The number of applications received to the 1st June, 1946, was 1024 the State Government selects land which it considers suitable for . settlement, but it must obtain Common- . wealth approval before the land can be brought within the terms of the Land Settlement Agreement. In practice joint inspections ore made by Commonwealth and State officers, thus enabling agreement to be reached on the site as to suitability. Training is carried out by State authorities as agents for the Commonwealth. The placing of men on the land is a function of the State authorities. The South Australian settlement proposals approved by the Commonwealth involve dry-farming and irrigation. The dry-farming proposals require the carrying out by the State Government of developmental work over periods of from one to three years, and the placing of certain structural improvements onthe farms. This work is proceeding in the face of difficulties in obtaining required plant and materials, which are in short supply throughout the Commonwealth. The approved irrigation project at Loxton involves the carrying out by the State of major public works necessary for the supply of water, the preparation of the land and the planting of the trees and vines. Neither form of settlement can take place under the scheme until the necessary works are completed. Obviously this takes time, but the Commonwealth and the State have agreed that holdings must be improved to the stage when they will be capable of production within a reasonable time of occupation.

page 3178

QUESTION

PENICILLIN

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate whether, on the 13th July, the Comptroller-General of Customs issued tariff decision 46/133, declaring that penicillin in powder form when packed in ampules each containing a dosage of 100,000 unite is dutiable, under section 285 of the Customs Act, as from the 15th July at the rate of 33.25 per cent.? Does not the Minister considerthat it would be better to give this life-saving medicine to the public at the lowest possible price? If the customs impost is to enable Australian-made penicillin to compete on an economic basis, could not that object be achieved by buying a subsidy on the Australian product to bring it down to overseas prices?

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Penicillin comes within a category of drugs in respect of which there is a blanket duty.

Senator McLeay:

– Why place a duty on drugs at all?

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In order that locally-produced penicillin could compete with the imported drug the control of its production in Australia was undertaken by the Government in 1943 Penicillin is still produced under Government control at the Serum Laboratories in Melbourne. I shall have an investigation made, as requested by the honorable senator in’ order to ascertain what happened on the 13th July.

page 3178

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Pensions for Officers

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy say whether it is the practice in the Royal Australian Navy for officers to be retired without a pension at the age of 45 years? If so, and bearing in mind the fact that although such officers are highly skilled specialists in the service, it is difficult for them to embark on a new profession at that age, and also that that is a time when family responsibilities are generally heaviest, will the Minister consider the granting of pensions to such officers, or alternatively, their retention in the civil branch of the services where their specialized knowledge can best be utilized?

Senator McKenna:

– I understand that it is correct that officers of the Royal Australian Navy are retired at the age of 45 years. At the time of the retirement of an officer who has had satisfactory service there is generally a considerable sum, representing deferred pay, accruing to him. The naval administration has beenconsideringwhetheraschemeof pensionsmightbemoresatisfactory,and I expect that in the immediate future consideration will be given to that matter.

page 3179

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Broadcastingof Proceedings

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– In connexion with the recent controversy concerning alleged attacks in parliamentary broadcasts on individuals, and the suggestion that the members of the public concerned should he given some means of reply, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Committee asked the Government of New Zealand, whether, in that Dominion, . the question of providing means whereby a member of the public could reply to statements made in, and broadcast from, the New Zealand Parliament had ever been raised. The New Zealand Government has replied in the following terms: -

No special provision is made for means of reply by persons attacked in parliamentary proceedings and no situationhas arisen in New Zealand which has made this an issue.

The committee, at a meeting this morning, considered the matter and decided that no action should be taken at this stage, but that the matter be deferred for consideration by the committee to be appointed by the next Parliament.

page 3179

QUESTION

MUNITIONS ESTABLISHMENTS

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– During the war the Government implemented a policy of decentralization of industries and established a number of munitions factories in country areas. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction whether those factories have been acquired by private enterprise? If so, how many of them are now in use? What are the possibilities of the remainder being used by private enterprise?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– It is the policy of the Government to provide for the decentralization of industry on a very large scale. Recently, the Minister ‘for Post-war Reconstruction made a state ment giving particulars of the allocation of space in the various factories throughout the Commonwealth. I know that so far as such establishments in Hobart are concerned, very extensive use is being made of the munitions works at Derwent Park by private enterprise, resulting in the employment of many persons. Offhand, I am not able to supply the information sought by the honorable senator. I shall refer his question to the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction and supply the information at an early date.

page 3179

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Occupation Force in Japan.

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

– I understand that the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Defence has now available a reply to a question asked by Senator Mattner on the 19th June relating to matters affecting the Australian occupation troops in Japan.

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Senator Mattner’s question was brought to the notice of the Acting Minister for Defence who has furnished the following information : -

Quality of Food. - From the date of arrival in Japan until the 3 1st May, 1946, each national contingent of British Commonwealth Occupation Force wasfed in accordance with its own ration scale. However, since the 1st June, 1946, all personnel in British Commonwealth Occupation Force except Indian troops have been fed on the same ration scale. This scale has been approvedby the Army’s medical and nutritional experts and its calorific value is approximately 4.000 calorics. Fresh food is issued to the greatest possible extent.

Canteen Supplies. - The Director of Canteens Services whohas just returned from Japan reports that arrangements for canteen supplies generally have satisfied all elements of British Commonwealth Occupation Force. Reports of shortages of soap and cigarette papers have been received. In the case of soap these shortages are caused by shortage of fats. In the case of cigarette papers England and Singapore have been contacted in an endeavour to obtain further supplies.

Irregularity of Mails. - The Royal Australian Air Force operate the air service for letter mail to Japan. The schedules for the. service provide for three planes a week in either direction which should result in a five-day passage for letters with three deliveries weekly. However, it has not been possible to maintain these schedules due to planes being grounded en routeby bad weather and temporaryunserviceability. Irregular connexions at Morotai due to the above reasons have also contributed to delays. Despite these interruptions a twice-weekly delivery was maintained during the period 21st February to 31st May, 1946, with an average passage period of about nine days. Reports from Japan indicate that other national contingencies of British Commonwealth Occupation Force are experiencing similar irregular mail receipts, due in each case to the same factor of irregular air conveyance services.

Venereal Disease. - Medical officers appointed for service in Japan must be volunteers. No volunteer medical officer with special knowledge and experience in the treatment of venereal disease is available at present. Continued efforts are being made to obtain the services of such an officer. In the meantime, medical officers with units are quite competent to treat uncomplicated cases. Supplies of preventive material and drugs for the treatment of the disease are available in adequate quantity in medical units in Japan.

page 3180

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Position in South Australia.

Senator McLEAY:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Supply and Shipping been drawn tothe deplorable position existing in South Australia owing to continued strikes on the coal-fields and in the shipping industry? It is reported that from’ to-day trams will not run in Adelaide, gas will not be available to householders who also will not be permitted to use electric current for radio reception. A considerable number of persons is likely to be thrown out of employment with every prospect of the position worsening. Is the Minister prepared, at this late hour, to take immediate and drastic action under the Crimes Act to deal with the few fanatics who are responsible for all of the trouble?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware that some restrictions have been placed upon the use of power in South Australia.

Senator McLeay:

– Some restrictions !

Senator ASHLEY:

– Restrictions have been imposed also in Victoria, and in other States for some months in an endeavour to conserve fuel. The Government does not propose to take any action under the Crimes Act as suggested by the honorable senator, because it realizes that such action would not increase the production of coal. The House of Representatives has before it at present a bill providing for the setting up of a new authority to control the caol-mining industry. I am confident that when that legislation is placed upon the statute-book, it will dis pel the atmosphere of distrust that exists’ in the industry to-day and will result in a greater measure of tolerance between employers and employees, and a greater appreciation of their responsibilities to the nation.

page 3180

QUESTION

MOTOR CARS AND HOUSES

Black Market Prices : Prosecutions

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware of the frequent press reports of police court proceedings against individuals who have broken the law by selling second-hand motor cars, and homes built prior to the fixing of ceiling prices in 1942, at prices higher than the pegged figures? Will the Minister give some consideration to increasing the ceiling prices of both motor cars and houses to bring them more into line with present- day costs?

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The maintenance of ceiling prices for second-hand motor cars is a matter that is causing the Prices Commissioner some concern, and it has been necessary to launch many prosecutions against individuals who have broken the law in this connexion. The scarcity of motor cars, of course, is a great incentive to prospective buyers topay above the ceiling prices. The same applies to homes. . Many people to-day would be willing to pay a handsome price - far above the pre-war value. - for a home. I shall have the matter reviewed in accordance with the honorable senator’s request, but I cannot hold out any hope at present for any appreciable relaxation of ceiling prices either on homes or motor cars.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs give any reason why frequently big business organizations which flout the prices regulations are not prosecuted as are individual offenders.

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not acquainted with any particular case that the honorable senator may have in mind, nor do I know what was done before I became Minister for Trade and Customs. However, since my appointment to that position, cases have been dealt with as they have arisen and no concessions have been given to anybody to my knowledge.

page 3181

QUESTION

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Threats by Unionists - Basic Wage.

Senator McLEAY:

– Has the attention, of the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General been drawn to intimidatory remarks and threats directed by prominent trade union leaders to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to the effect that, if the court refuses to fix a working week of 40 hours, they propose to call a general strike? If so, does he propose to take any action to prevent a continuance of such nonsense?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– My attention has not been drawn to any such remarks. If such threats have been made, they are, of course, subversive of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. I do not propose to intervene, nor do I believe that the Acting Attorney-General will do so. It will be entirely within the competence of the Arbitration Court to protect itself ; the court, on its own motion, can discipline persons guilty of conduct derogatory to its jurisdiction.

Senator McLEAY:

– In view of the application now before the Arbitration Court for the fixing of a 40-hour working week, will the Government consider having the basic wage reviewed at the same time, because the problems of hours of work and wages are very closely interwoven ?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government has already given consideration to that matter. Earlier this year it amended the wage-pegging regulations to permit unions to apply to the Arbitration Court for the variation not only of hours of work but also of wages. Therefore, there is no law to restrain them from doing so. As this matter rests entirely between the employers and the employees, the Government does not consider that it should urge either side to activity, and it is leaving the matter to the good sense and discretion of the parties concerned.

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service state whether the Government intends to refer the matter of. a review of the regimen used in the calculation of the basic wage to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, or to some other legally constituted authority?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall endeavour to secure the information desired by the honorable senator, and supply it as soon as possible.

page 3181

QUESTION

MEN’S WEAR

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:

– On the 5th July I asked a question regarding the’ export of men’s wear, which is in short supply in Western Australia. Is the Minister for Trade and Customs yet in a position to supply me with an answer ?

Senator J M FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is true that prices offering for many goods overseas are much more attractive than those prevailing in Australia. Manufacturers are naturally eager to exploit the more highly remunerative export trade, but, in order to provide essential requirements for Australian users, the Government has had to impose a system of export licences. Under the controls now in operation, ex-‘ ports in relation to production are small and should not cause local shortages of the goods mentioned. It would be to the advantage of Australia if a big export market in these, goods could be secured, and for this reason it is not considered desirable to hamper the export trade with unnecessary restrictions. Further, at the present -time, any additional profit secured from high export prices is used to assist in maintaining prices of local goods at a lower level than would be possible without the additional profits secured on exports. However, the position is being closely watched and the honorable senator may rest assured that, in administering the export control of these goods, care will be taken to ensure that sufficient supplies will be retained in Australia to meet essential requirements.

page 3181

QUESTION

ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:

– On the 24th July I asked a question of the Minister representing .the Acting AttorneyGeneral regarding disclosures made in the Canadian espionage trials. The Minister then requested me to give notice of the question. Yesterday, a question on similar lines was asked in the House of Representatives, and the Acting AttorneyGeneral, who is not a member of the legal profession, gave an answer possibly with the assistance of a representative of the Attorney-General’s Department who was present in the secretaries’ gallery. In order to obviate the possibility of questions asked in the Senate being of a second-hand nature, will he ensure that Ministers are in a position to give replies on the day when the questions are submitted? If necessary, will he have officers of various departments in attendance on Ministers in this chamber in order that questions may be replied to forthwith, thus avoiding the impression being formed that the Senate, as a questioning body, is supplementary to the House of Representatives ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I, and other Ministers, have always endeavoured to answer questions as expeditiously as possible; but many questions involve investigations, and it is always desirable that the replies given shall be accurate and as complete as possible, otherwise there would be no object in asking questions other than for political propaganda purposes. I do not know whether it would bepracticable to have departmental officers in attendance in this chamber to facilitate prompt replies.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– Why hot? Such officers are in attendance in the House of Representatives.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I shall give consideration to the honorable senator’s request. Ministers in the Senate will always endeavour to answer questions as quickly as possible. Many questions by honorable senators are inspired by those asked in the House of Representatives, but I accept no responsibility as to whether they shall be answered first in the Senate, or in the other branch of the legislature.

Later:

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

  1. In view of the recent widely publicized espionage trial in Canada, and the extensive and dangerous plotting of foreign agents in a so-called friendly country, uncovered in the evidence before the Canadian court, will the Minister assure the Senate that adequate steps have been taken in Australia to ensure that no such spy-ring exists in this country?
  2. Will the Minister have a review made of the Investigation Branch of the Attorney-

General’s Department for the purpose of increasing the status of this branch and if necessary to increase the staff of qualified investigators to cope with any eventuality in the direction already mentioned?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– The Acting Attorney-General has supplied the following answers: -

  1. I have not seen the report of the Canadian royal commission in espionage and. I have at present no knowledge of the nature’ of the spy-rings referred to by the honorable senator. I have, however, received advice from the Australian High Commissioner, Ottawa, that he has forwarded a copy of the report by air mail and, on its receipt, I will’ be in a position to ascertain the nature of the spy-rings referred to.
  2. I have only to-day signed an executive minute to the Governor-General in Council recommending the complete re-organization of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch and the Security Service into one body to be known as the Commonwealth Investigation Service. The Commonwealth Investigation Service will have a higher status than the former Investigation Branch and it is considered that its staff will be capable of coping with any class of inquiry required by the Government.

page 3182

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Communists

Senator McLEAY:

– Can the Leader of the Senate state whether certain avowed Communists are employed in the Commonwealth Public Service? If that be correct, in view of what has happened in Canada and other countries, will the Government take steps to have a check made to see whether men with Communist views are employed ‘by the Government ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am not in a position to state whether Communists are engaged in the Commonwealth Public Service. If there be some, I would say that they are entitled to retain their places in the departments in which they are employed, because members of other political parties are not debarred from entering the service. The Communist party is a recognized political party in Australia. Its candidates contest Commonwealth and State elections. If at any time action to ban Communists is to be taken, or if a political gestapo is to be appointed, I shall see that members of the Opposition are engaged, so that the work may be done properly.

page 3183

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1946

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator J. M. Fraser) read a first time.

Secondreading.

Senator J M FRASER:
tralia - Minister for Trade and Customs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill, which amends the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1938, is to provide for the reconstitution of the Australian Meat Board, and to grant to the board additional powers necessary to’ enable it to carry out work in relation to the long-term purchase agreement covering meat for export entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom. In this connexion, it should be emphasized that the Commonwealth meat purchase plan, under which the board will purchase all meat, both frozen and processed, that may be accepted for export, must be continued at least during the period of the long-term purchase agreement, which is certain to remain in force to the 30th September, 1948, and may be continued beyond that date. It is also pointed out that this plan was brought into operation at the request of producers shortly after the outbreak of war, and will necessarily have to be continued. Under the amending legislation now submitted, the Australian Meat Board will consist of twelve members, including a Commonwealth Government representative who will be appointedby the Governor-General as full-time chairman of the board. Of the remaining eleven members, seven will be representative of producer interests, thus giving to them a clear majority on the board. Producer members, comprising four representatives of the producers of lamb and mutton, two representatives of producers of beef, and one representative of the pig producers, must themselves be bona fide producers and shall be persons nominated by producer organizations constituted on a Commonwealth basis. The members appointed to represent the meat exporting companies shall be appointed after consultation . with representative organizations of meat exporters. The member appointed to represent employees shall be appointed after consultation with the Federal Council of the Meat Industry Employees Union. The ‘member appointed to represent the publicly owned abattoirs and freezing works will be appointed by the Governor-General.

Producer organizations have represented that the chairman of the board should be a producer member nominated by the producer representatives onthe board. During such period as the longterm purchase arrangement for the sale of Australia’s exportable meat to . the United Kingdom continues, the board will handle annually Commonwealth Government finance to the extent of more than £20,000,000, and in these circumstances it is the view of the Government that the Government itself should have the right to appoint the chairman.

The bill also gives the person presiding at a meeting the right to dissent from any decision of the board. This right is necessary because of the Commonwealth Government’s financial interest in the operations of the board. It is essential that the chairman shall have the right to bring to the Minister’s notice immediately any resolution which he thinks may involve the Commonwealth Government in any way on a point of principle or, what is even more important, the question of financial losses or gains. The Commonwealth Government’s financial interests in the meat industry in the immediate future are such that it is considered these interests should be safeguarded by a clause such as that which has been included in this amending legislation. It will be appreciated that it is not practicable to appoint to the board representatives of all the interests connected with the meat industry, and that it is necessary and desirable that the membership in terms of numbers be limited. In order, therefore, that all sections of the industry may be in a position to present their views on industry matters, provision has been made for the setting up of State Advisory Committees. It will be competent for any duly constituted State organization which represents a section of the meat industry to apply for representation on a State committee.

As it is proposed that the administration of the long-term purchase agreement for meat, entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United Kingdom, will be a function of the board after expiration of the National Security Act, provision has been made for the powers of the board to be extended to include the following: -

  1. To purchase on behalf of the Commonwealth Government any meat; meat product, or edible offal.
  2. To sell on behalf of the Common wealth Government any meat, meat product, or edible offal.
  3. To manage and control as neces sary, the handling, storage and shipment of any meat, meat product, or edible offal.
  4. Subiect to the approval of the Commonwealth Government, to obtain advances from the Commonwealth Bank under Commonwealth Government guarantee, for use in the purchase of meat for export and the payment of expenses incurred in connexion therewith.

Attention is directed to the provision, which is of special interest to producers, that the conditions attaching to the issue by the board of an export licence have been extended to make it obligatory on the licensee, where the producer-owner of such stock so requests, to treat stock on account of the owner on a weight and grade basis. Other amendments are of a machinery nature only and are necessary to give effect to the major amendments, to which attention has already been directed.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 3184

WHEAT INDUSTRY. STABILIZATION BILL 1946

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th July (vide page 2930), on motion by Senator J. M.Fraser -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The notice-paper contains two bills dealing with the wheat industry, and as they are so closely interwoven I suggest, Mr. President, that they be taken as cognate measures, and that in dealing with this hill we shall be entitled to refer to the Wheat Export Charge Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the two bills be taken together ?

Honorable Senators. - Yes.

Senator McLEAY:

– The wheat industry has been the plaything of party politics for many years, but I am pleased to note that the Government has at last come hack to a stabilization plan . the principles of which were established by the Menzies Government. I propose to trace briefly what has happened since the present Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) has been the Minister in charge of the department which controls the wheat industry. I have no wish to be unkind to the Minister, but if we consider the facts calmly and fairly we must come to the conclusion that, for a number of years, there has been considerable muddling, which has affected the production of wheat in Australia and at one time practically led to a wheat famine. I do not blame the Minister for the drought, but I do blame him for his administration. I shall direct attention to the troubles that have arisen because of the muddling to which I have referred, and shall show how our national economy has been affected. However, as I have said, I am pleased that at last the Minister is getting back to the position which existed in the wheat industry when the present Labour Government assumed office. As Minister for Commerce when war broke out in 1939 . I established the first Australian Wheat Board. That body was constituted at short notice and it was called upon to handle a record Australian wheat crop. I pay a tribute to. the members of the board for the splendid work that they performed, particularly in the early stages of the war. I offer the most emphatic protest against the shabby treatment meted out to two men whom I appointed to that body. First, I shall refer to Mr.

John Teasdale,’ who heard of his. dismissal when listening to the radio. Mr. Teasdale is one of the best all-round authorities on the wheat industry in this country. Bearing in mind what he had done for the wheat-growers of Australia, his dismissal in that way was shabby treatment. I was very pleased when the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture altered his tactics and decided to enable the wheatgrowers to elect the members of the Australian Wheat Board ; and it gave me very great satisfaction when, under that system, the growers in Western Australia reaffirmed my high opinion of Mr. Teasdale by electing him to the board. The other gentleman to whom I refer is Mr. Harold Darling, who, like his late father, is an , experienced wheat-grower, miller and merchant. He acted as a member of the board in an hon.orary capacity and did outstanding work for, the industry, being fully acquainted with marketing conditions in various countries. The firm of” John Darling and Son is known and highly respected in countries where wheat is bought and sold.

Mr. Darling did exceptional work on behalf of the industry, particularly during the early stages of the war. However, the first he heard of his dismissal was also over the radio. The Minister then had his “ yes “ men, his political friends in the industry, appointed to- the Australian Wheat Board and they let the growers down. It was not until that time that the board, acting on the advice of the Minister, decided to sell wheat to New Zealand at a price considerably below parity. The board was instructed also to sell wheat to poultry and other producers at prices considerably below the cost of production. It was only when the Australian Wheat Growers Federation became indignant at such decisions and brought pressure to bear upon the Government that the Minister, decided to meet the growers, more or less, half way, and provide a subsidy in order to recompense them for part of the losses they sustained under those decisions. Wheat at special prices was made available in order to win popularity for the Minister in his electorate. I sincerely hope that the industry will now be removed from the sphere of party politics, and that the members of the Australian Wheat Board will be elected by the growers themselves. I hope that by adopting a long-range plan we shall be able to stabilize the industry, the importance of which I fully appreciate. I wish simply to say that my chief objection to the proposal in the measure is the limitation of the guaranteed price to a period of five year’s. The second muddle for which the Minister was responsible was in connexion with the smart move made by Mr. Wise, the then Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia. Mr. Wise is a very able and astute Western Australian. I am satisfied that he “ ‘put it over “ the Minister and the other State governments when he persuaded .the Minister to pay to wheat-growers in Western Australia 12s. an acre not to grow wheat. The reason advanced for that payment was that Western Australia was seriously short of man-power and transport. However, similar shortages existed in the other States. Although at that time a surplus of wheat was foreseen, I cannot understand why, later, when a drought was imminent, and it was apparent to any one who1- knew anything about the industry that a serious shortage was about to occur, the Minister refused to remedy the mistake as quickly as possible. What are the facts? We find that in this connexion £285,000 was paid to wheat-growers in Western Australia for the year ended 30th June, 1946, and £560,000 for the ‘year ended the 30th June, 1945. Those payments were made to farmers in Western Australia not to grow wheat at a time when an alarming shortage was imminent. During the past four years the total- amount paid to wheat-growers in Western Australia not to grow wheat amounted to £1,960,000. That fact is clear evidence of muddling on the part of the Minister and his failure to take steps to remedy the position so soon as it became evident that a shortage ‘ was about to occur. 1 know that the Minister will suggest in reply to my remarks that there was a shortage” of superphosphate in Western Australia, but wheat-growers in the other States were also experiencing the same difficulty, although in some parts of New South Wales wheat could be profitably grown without the application, of superphosphate.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator says that Mr. “Wise “ put it over “ the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. Does he accuse Mr. Wise of being a “ sharper “

Senator McLEAY:

– No; If I have left that impression in the mind of the honorable senator I shall correct it. Mr. Wise is one of the best men with whom I have come in contact in dealing with the problems of the wheat industry. He is a good Western Australian, and he was able to “ put it over “ the Minister in the instance to which I have referred.

Later, the Minister, for some unknown reason, decided to bring “in a new plan which has become known as the Scully Plan, for the payment of 4s. a bushel at growers’ sidings for the first 3,000 bushels and 2s. a bushel for the remainder. That meant that the big wheatgrowers in this country, who form 30 per cent, of the total number of growers but normally produce 70 per cent, of the total Australian crop, were scared from engaging in full production. The Minister, after muddling with the problem for some years, was then advised that his plan was unconstitutional. After he had been responsible for bringing about almost a wheat famine, and creating conditions under which it became necessary to prohibit the export of wheat, somebody - I presume that the guiding hands were the experts in his department - brought wiser counsels to bear upon him, and he then introduced a scheme on a basis similar to that of the scheme proposed by the Menzies Government. I am intrigued from time to time when I hear members’ of this Government lay flattering unction to their souls when. speaking about what the Government has done for the wheatgrowers. Pamphlets have been circulated throughout the Commonwealth for party political purposes. There was no greater offender in this misrepresentation than Mr. P. S. Richards, the Leader of the Labour Opposition in the Parliament of South Australia. He did not hesitate to take from its context a portion of a statement dealing with the first advance proposed under the Menzies Government scheme in order to create /the impression among, the wheat-growers that that payment was the only payment to be made under that scheme. He did not have the decency ito say that that payment was only a first payment. I have done my best at every opportunity to correct that misrepresentation. After the Minister’s “ yes “ men were appointed to the Australian Wheat Board in the place of experienced men who were dismissed, the board failed to watch, the interests of the growers. The Government claims that it has done something for the growers. I challenge the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in this chamber to produce evidence that the Government has provided one penny benefit tq the growers. In reply to a question that I asked in this chamber recently the Leader of the Senate stated that from June, 1940, to June, 1946, wheat-growers of Australia paid, to the Commonwealth Bank £4,138,504 in interest at the rate of 3£ .per cent. Three and a half per cent, was the interest rate that we . were able to secure for the first advances to the wheat-growers, and at that time prevailing rates were much higher than they are to-day. We believed that 3$ per cent, was a very reasonable figure. I regret that this . Government, in pursuing the general policy of reducing interest rates - a policy that I support heartily - has not taken action to secure a reduction of the rate charged by the Commonwealth Bank to the wheat-growers of Australia. If the Government has been able to obtain treasury-bill finance at a cost of 1 per cent., as was stated in this chamber yesterday, it is, doing very well indeed out of the wheat-grower by charging him 3£ per cent. I suggest to the Minister for Trade and Customs that in the future the question of the interest rates payable on these huge sums of money might be taken into consideration. There is no risk associated with the advances. The Commonwealth Government guarantees the Commonwealth Bank, and half of the profit made by the Commonwealth Bank reverts to the Treasury and the other half goes to reserve funds for further advances to primary producers. A further suggestion I have to make is this: In respect of wheat sold at less than the world parity price to New Zealand and in Australia for stock feed, the wheat-growers of this country have a legal claim on the Government to. make up the difference between the selling price and the parity price. That amount would run into several million pounds. In the press to-day there is a report that certain wheatgrowers have issued a writ against the Commonwealth Government in respect of its failure to pay to them the sum to which they consider they are entitled for the 1945-46 crop. I can see widespread litigation arising, and in the interests of common decency, I suggest to the Government that the difference between the price at which the wheat was’ sold for stock feed, and the world parity price be paid into the respective pools. At all costs, we should avoid litigation on these questions. I do not pose as an expert on constitutional issues, but in the language of a layman, when wheat ls acquired in accordance with constitutional authority it must be acquired at a just price, and the High Court has ruled recently that a just price is the price ruling at the time of acquisition. That, strengthens the claim of wheat-growers. I do not propose at this stage to argue what the exact amount should be, because there is a great controversy throughout Australia about it, but I make this final plea to the Government before the general elections to do the right thing by the wheat-growers.

Senator Ashley:

– The Leader of the Opposition made a promise before a previous ‘election, and was taken to task for it when be returned to bis own .State.

Senator McLEAY:

– I was taken to task by Labour supporters who made a lying statement about what the Menzies Government intended to do in connexion with the wheat industry. One of ‘ the Minister’s Labour colleagues from South Australia was the prime mover in that.

Having given that background of the wheat industry, I repeat that I am indeed pleased that the Government, in cooperation with the governments of the States, even at this late hour, has propounded a plan for the stabilization of the wheat industry. Whilst I support the proposal wholeheartedly, I regret that, in spite of strong arguments advanced by members of the Australian Country party, and the Liberal party, in the. House of Repre* sentatives, the Government, bound by a caucus decision, was not prepared to accept even one of the many amendments proposed by the Opposition in an endeavour to assist the wheat stabilization scheme. I know the reason for that refusal: Most Labour members in the House of Representatives represent industrial electorates, and do not know anything about wheat. When I heard the poor team ‘ of speakers on the Government benches trying to defend the Government, I was ashamed to think that, because of a caucus decision, the Government waa not prepared to listen to reason. In fact, the Government’s position became so hopeless that the Speaker himself had to come down from his chair to the floor of the House to pick up the pieces ‘ and save some of his more experienced colleagues from slaughter. I urge the Government to heed the suggestions that we shall make in this chamber for improvements of the bill. We should be able to reduce the number of amendments moved in the House of Representatives to four or five. .1 shall deal in detail with those amendments when the bill reaches the committee stage; but I shall state them briefly now to give the Government time to think them over.

Senator Collings:

– How can “ stupid “ people think things over.

Senator McLEAY:

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Eraser), who represents him in this chamber, have added obstinacy to stupidity. Our first proposal -is that the 1945-46 wheat crop should be excluded from the operation of the scheme. - That matter is soon to be tested in the High, Court of Australia. That wheat was acquired and delivered in 1945, and now the Government proposes to deduct approximately 2s’.. a bushel in respect of that proportion of the wheat exported as wheat or as fleur. On, say, 70,000,000 bushels, that will mean a direct tax on wheat-growers of more than £7,000,000. There is another reason why the 1945-46 crop should bc excluded, and that is that the harvest in that year followed a drought season, when very little wheat was produced and farmers had a bad time. When the war ended, farmers found it necessary to buy new machinery, to have old machinery repaired, to pay higher wages under new Arbitration Court awards; and to meet many difficulties in securing experienced workers. The result was a substantial increase of” the cost of- producing the 1945-46 crop. It is a matter for regret, therefore, that such a substantial sum is to be withheld from the wheat-growers in respect of that crop, and when the relative clause is under discussion, I shall move an amendment aimed at rectifying that anomaly.

In Victoria and in other States where stabilization schemes have operated smoothly, it has always been the ‘practice to prepare a plan, submit it to the growers, and ask for their co-operation and. approval. That is a sound principle, and I suggest, therefore, that in this instance we agree upon a scheme and then submit it to the wheat-growers for consideration. I cannot understand the Government’s refusal to accede to the wishes of the Opposition. I now refer to the proposed representation of the States on the Australian Wheat Board. The bill provides that Western Australia, South Australia, and Queensland will each have one grower-representative, and that Victoria and New South Wales will each have two representatives. I have learned from practical experience that there is a tendency to disregard the welfare of Western Australia because of its remote position and to favour the interests of the more densely populated States. Western Australia produces the same quantity of wheat as does Victoria from approximately the same area and, therefore, it has the right to be represented on the board by two members. The same thing applies to South Australia. I admit that anti-Labour governments have been guilty of unfair treatment of Western Australia, but I do not support their actions’ in that respect, and I ask this Government not to perpetuate the practice. Western Australia’s transport problems, for instance, are different from those of the eastern States, and it is obvious that, with unequal representation, Western Australia is likely to suffer when important decisions are made on that subject.. That State, as well as South Australia, is entitled to equal representation with Victoria and New

South Wales on account of its wheat production and the number of men engaged in the industry.

The proposed price payable to growers from realizations . is 5s. 2d. a bushel at ports, plus 50 per cent. That figure was established ten years ago when the parties on this side of the Senate were in power. I do not believe that the Government can. state accurately the average cost of production of wheat to-day. The Gepp Commission had great difficulty in reaching a decision on production costs.

Senator Clothier:

– It did not make a report.

Senator McLEAY:

– On the contrary it presented a valuable report, but it referred to the difficulty of fixing an accurate figure for the cost of production because of the great variation of conditions over the whole of Australia. 1 do not complain about the fixing of a price of 5s. 2d. a bushel at ports for the first year of the scheme. However, the Opposition, suggests, in the interests of the growers, that a rural industries board be established on the lines of the Tariff Board to investigate the’ industry from time to time with a view to fixing an amount to cover the cost of production plus a reasonable margin of profit. In view of present world conditions, it is obvious that costs will rise considerably within the next four or five years. A board of three members, constituted on the lines of the Tariff Board and charged with the duty that I have outlined, would give a great deal of satisfaction to the wheat-growers. The Tariff Board has functioned very well and has established a good reputation. We have an Arbitration Court to fix wages and conditions of employment for industrial workers. It is only fair that men engaged in rural industries should be assisted in the same way. No section of the community has suffered greater- hardships than the primary producers,, particularly those engaged in production for export. A board such as I have suggested should be appointed permanently. It could investigate not only the wheat industry, but also other primary industries, at suitable intervals, and recommend to the Government prices which it considers would provide fair- margins of profit. The Opposition proposes to submit an amendment in the committee stages to provide that all sales, apart from those provided for in the bill, shall be made at export parity. This would mean that the price returned to the growers from all wheat sold by the Australian Wheat Board for stock feed, for instance, would be equal to the price received for export wheat. This would not apply, of course, to wheat sold for flour in Australia. Then, should the Government decide that a particular industry needed to be supplied with wheat at reduced prices, the sacrifice would not have to be made by the wheat-growers alone. It is unfair to ask the growers to suffer such cuts. Experience has proved to me that the wheat-growers have suffered much more than other primary producers as the result of over-production and the consequent disastrous reduction of world prices. I am glad that the export price has increased so that growers are to-day enjoying better conditions than they have enjoyed for many years. They deserve to receive higher prices in order to compensate them for their financial hardships during the long period of low prices. In my view, the scheme should operate for at least ten years.

Senator Collings:

– This “ muddled “ plan ?

Senator McLEAY:

– No, the scheme provided for in the bill, which is similar in principle to the scheme which was adopted by the Menzies Government. All parties favour it in principle, and it ought to operate for at least ten years.

Senator Amour:

– The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Turnbull) said in the House of Representatives that he had come into the Parliament with the express purpose of “killing” this bill.

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Amour is an authority on killing.

Senator Amour:

– The Leader of the Opposition and his supporters killed many a farmer with their 2s.10d. a bushel plan when they were in office.

Senator McLEAY:

– The honorable senator is not stating the facts. The scheme which we placed on the statutebook, and which this Government repealed, fixed a price of 3s.10d. a bushel which,. having regard to world prices and costs at the time, was very good.

Senator Aylett:

– The first guaranteed price was 2s. 10½d. a bushel, less 4½d. freight.

Senator McLEAY:

– That statement is a lie.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Courtice). - Order!

Senator McLEAY:

– Well, it is untrue. The price provided in the legislation was 3s.10½d. a bushel at ports..

Senator Aylett:

– I am talking about the flour tax guarantee.

Senator McLEAY:

– The stabilization scheme introduced by the Menzies Government guaranteed a price of 3s.10d. a bushel. I ask the “little” senator from Tasmania, who may know something about apples, to get his facts straight on the wheat industry. I trust that he and other supporters of the Government will not be so unworthy of their positions as to continue to take from its context a figure which relates to another problem altogether. In order to support my contention that the figure laid down by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), which was accepted by the Senate, was fair and reasonable, I quote from a policy speech made by the late Mr. John Curtin on the 28th August, 1940 -

Reconstitution of the Australian Wheat Board, go as to provide for the growers electing their own representatives, will be our first major act in dealing with the wheat industry.

Our policy provides for: (1.) 3s. 10½d. f.o.r. at ports for the first 1,000 bags (3,000 bushels). (2.) When there is an increase in the price of wheat above 3s. 10½d, half of the increase in regard to the guaranteed wheat to be set aside to enable the pool to repay the advances made to it and to build upa reserve fund, and the other half to be paid to the growers.

This would mean that should the world price for wheat reach, say, 4s. 10½. a bushel, fid. would go to the grower and the other 6d. would be retained by the pool for the purposes enumerated.

In order to protect the consumer, millers would pay a special price of 4s. a bushel, irrespective of any increase or decrease in world price; thus ensuring that the public will be able to get bread at a reasonable price. This planmakes the flour tax unnecessary and it will, therefore, disappear.

The Minister for Commerce and. Agriculture did not implement the plan enunciated by Mr. Curtin.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– He is doing that now.

Senator McLEAY:

– Yes, but his bungling has caused great loss to Australia. The Curtin Government never provided wheat for flour at 4s. a bushel ; the price remained at 5s. 2d. a bushel. The people of Australia have been misled, because neither of the two proposals, which were ofparamount importance, was adopted. Honorable senators opposite should not travel around the country harking that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), when in power, was prepared to sell wheat at 2s.10d. a bushel.

The stabilization scheme will be of great advantage to the wheat-growers. I believe that the amendments desired by the Liberal party, supported by the Australian Country party, would not affect the scheme in principle, but would provide for improvements of the bill that would give satisfaction to the growers. If the Government does not listen to reason and accept these amendments, I venture to predict that the governments of some of the States will not agree to the measure in its present form. We are now proposing to do the right thing by a large and important industry, as far as principles are concerned, and we should forget party polities. Let all political parties say to the growers, “ For ten years there shall be stability and security of tenure. Land prices will be prevented from rising to ridiculous levels”.

I cannot understand why the Department of Commerce and Agriculture refuses to say that there will be no limitation of acreage for the next three years, except with regard to marginal areas. According to the latest report which I have seen from the departmentthere will be no restriction as to the 1946-47 crop ; but it is necessary to fallow in 1946-47 in order to be ready for the 1947-48 crop. Farmers have said that they cannot get wheat licences, and they have had to go on with the job of fallowing. I plead with the Government to have sufficient imagination to say that for three or four years there shall be no restrictions of production. The farmers should be allowed to sow as much wheat as they wish because the world is crying out for it. They would get good prices for all they could produce, and that would help the economy of the Commonwealth enormously; but, through some pigheaded action, the Government refuses to say what acreage the farmers may sow for 1947-48. Senator O’Flaherty posed lastnight as a wheat-grower.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– I said thatI produced foodstuffs.

Senator McLEAY:

– He knows that the farmers ought to be told now what area they can sow in 1947-48, but I cannot induce the Government to show any sanity in this matter. It should reconsider the amendments desiredby the Opposition, and remove the restrictions for a longer period, in order that the farmers may now plan ahead. Labour is short, and the farmers have to work hard. We should not handicap them by forcing them to fill in extra returns, if that can be avoided. If they are to have the benefit of a guaranteed price for some years, they must realize that production must be controlled. Licensing is essential.

Senator Aylett:

– The Leader of the Opposition is coming around to the Labour party’s view.

Senator McLEAY:

– The Menzies Government introduced this control. The honorable senator had better concentrate on apples. I am pleased that an opportunity is presented to remove the problem of the wheat industry from the arena of party politics, and adopt a scheme that will give satisfaction to all parties including the growers, but that will not be possible unless the Government agreed to amendments to be proposed by the Opposition.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) referred to statements made by Mr. R. S. Richards, of South Australia, than whom there is not a more honest man. I deplore the action of the Leader of the Opposition in trying to convince honorable senators that Mr. Richards had uttered lies. Then he proceeded to say that I had posed as one of the wheatgrowers of South Australia. What I said was that I was now producing stuff for export which would, provide food for the people of Great Britain. I made that remark in reply to Senator Cooper, who asked me if I grew wheat. The Leader of the Opposition was guilty of a deliberate misstatement, because he knows that I do not grow wheat. I shall produce more food for Britain this year. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition first traduced Mr. Richards, and. then misrepresented me. He queries statements made by members of the Labour party from time to time. He quoted a statement about ‘the wheat Industry from the policy speech of the late Mr. Curtin, although the present Government is now implementing the Curtin plan.

Senator McLeay:

– Six years afterwards.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The honorable senator knows that it was not possible to inaugurate the plan during the war period, but advantage is being taken hy the present government of the opportunity to implement it under this bill. The Leader of the Opposition said he believed in the stabilization of the wheat Industry. I question, not his sincerity in that remark, but his. views as to what constitutes stabilization. He remarked that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has “stooges” on the Australian Wheat Board, whom he put there, apparently without reference to anybody. The fact is that the board members referred to have been chosen by the wheat-growers of Australia through their organizations. The Leader of the Opposition now says that those representatives should he selected by the registered growers. In accordance with the policy of the Labour party we have recognized the organizations of the farmers concerned with the industry. We believe in unionism, and we have tried to get the wheat-growers to form associations. We have succeeded up to a point, and the great majority of them are members of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, with which negotiations were made with regard to this scheme. That body has nominated representatives of the wheat-growers for appointment to the hoard. They cannot all be “yes” men of the Labour Government, because some members of the board have taken exception to the Labour party’s policy, but the wheat-growers’ organization has suggested some of the provisions which have been incorporated in the bill. After all, it is a wheat-growers’ plan. 1 admit that in 1939 the Menzies Government introduced a scheme for the control of the wheat industry, but the present Leader of the Opposition is wrong when he says that at that time 3s. 10½d. a bushel was offered to farmers for their wheat. In 1939, when the decision to introduce a plan affecting the wheat industry was made, there were large stocks of old wheat with growers’ agents, and some wheat also in the hands of farmers. Wheat was acquired for the No. 1 pool for 2s. 9.9d. a bushel. When costs were deducted, the net return to- the -grower was less than 2s. .a bushel. The incoming crop also was acquired for the No. 2 pool, and a first advance of 2s. lOd. a bushel was made. I do not say that 2s. lOd. a bushel was all that the farmers received for their wheat; that was only a first advance. But even that amount was riot .paid within a month. Additional payments brought the price to 3s. 6$d. a bushel, but freight and other charges reduced the net return to the grower to slightly less than 3s. a bushel. It will be seen therefore, that although the Menzies’ Government introduced a plan for the wheat industry, it did not- offer 3s. 10£d. a bushel for wheat. Significance is attached to the Government’s publicly expressed views regarding payments for wheat acquired. . In announcing that financial assistance would be made available for the establishment of a wheat pool the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister for Commerce in the Menzies Government, said -

I am now able to announce that we have arranged not only that the amount of the advance shall be increased to 2s. 104d. a bushel for bagged wheat, less rail freight, and 2s. 8Jd. a bushel for bulk wheat, less rail freight, thus giving an average return of 2s. fid. a bushel for bagged wheat at country sidings, but also that the advances shall be paid in one amount as soon as practicable after delivery of the wheat. I earnestly say-.that these financial proposals represent not only a fair but also a generous approach to the problem by the Government.

It will be seen that the government of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a Minister said that a net return of 2s. 6d. a bushel to farmers was a reasonable approach to the problem. I have admitted that in 1939 there was considerable dislocation throughout the country,1 and that the government of the day probably could not see very far ahead. Since then there has been- ia. tendency on the part of the Opposition to agree- with the Labour party that a stabilization plan for the wheat industry is necessary. Previously, the parties now in Opposition did not favour such a plan. Their opposition to a stabilization plan is probably due to the fact that they did not suggest it first.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The honorable senator says that’ the stabilization plan before the Senate is the farmers-‘ own plan.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The plan now before the Parliament embodies the views of the bulk of the wheat-growers of Australia; in other words, they have accepted the plan of the Labour Government. When 2s. 10½d. a bushel’ for wheat was suggested in 1939 a Labour member of the House of Representatives, speaking on behalf, of the then Opposition, sought a first advance of 3s. 6d. a bushel, but the government of the day would not accept the amendment. Eventually, consideration of the measure was postponed. That is the history of the plan submitted to the Parliament by a government con- sisting of the parties now in opposition. I repeat that that plan dealt with marketing, and was not a stabilization plan, whereas the plan now before the Senate is a stabilization plan plus a marketing plan.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– What was the overseas price of wheat at that time ?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I have given to the parties now in opposition credit for the introduction of a scheme to deal with the wheat industry, and I have admitted that at the time of its introduction there was considerable dislocation because of the international situation. The actual price does not matter greatly. I have given the facts because the Leader of the Opposition said that the Menzies Government in which he was a Minister offered 3s. 10½d. a bushel for wheat. He also said that considerable sums of money were paid to compensate farmers in Western Australia for not growing wheat. He said that Mr. Wise, the present Premier of Western Australia, persuaded the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to pay 12s. 6d. an acre to farmers in Western Australia not to grow wheat.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That is true.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That may be so, but I remind Senator Herbert Hays and the Leader of the Opposition that a similar offer was made .to the governments of other States in which farmers were trying to grow wheat in marginal areas where wheat-growing was not a paying proposition. In 1939, the then Minister for Commerce said -

We cannot continue to provide large sums of public money to support the wheat-growers while they go on producing unsaleable grain. Such a procedure would be demoralizing and unsound. ‘

The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that a royal . commission was appointed to inquire into marginal areas, and later the Commonwealth was approached to deal with that problem. Wheat was being grown in marginal areas in Western Australia, as well as in other States, and some compensation had to be provided to the farmers concerned to enable them to change over to other production. This Government decided to pay such compensation at the rate of 12s. 6d. an acre, that rate reducing on a sliding scale. The same offer was made also to South Australia and Victoria, in order to deal with the problem of marginal wheat-growing areas in those States, but the governments of those States did not avail themselves of that offer. Consequently, honorable senators opposite are not justified in complaining now of that payment to wheatgrowers in. Western Australia. That compensation is being paid in accordance with the principle enunciated by governments which honorable senators opposite supported. Therefore, they are not justified in kicking up a row about the matter now. Within a few years pay- ment of ‘that compensation to those at present in receipt of it will cease; but I have no doubt that compensation on the same principle will be paid to other primary producers should it become necessary to enable them to change over to the production of crops which they are not now producing. I have said sufficient to show that that payment is not made to producers in Western Australia, as honorable senators opposite glibly allege, not to grow wheat. It is made in accordance with the statement, of the Leader of ‘ the Opposition, when he was Minister for Commerce, that it was demoralizing and unsound for farmers to continue to grow unsaleable grain; and, of course, honorable senators opposite still say that it is uneconomic to grow more wheat than can be sold. Yet, to-day, they urge that .we should ‘produce all the wheat that we are capable of growing. They cannot have it both ways. We must plan our economy in order to meet our own requirements and to distribute equitably among the producers the proceeds from the sales of surpluses which are exported. That is the basis of the scheme embodied in the measure now before us.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he accepted the proposed guaranteed price of 5s. 2d. a bushel, but he urged the Government to appoint- a board to examine all phases of production and to determine the cost.. I can see no objection to the appointment of a board for that purpose. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, when he enunciates such a proposal, would be in better company outside the Liberal party. How: ever, he suggested that the board he had in mind should determine wages in much the same way as the Arbitration Court determines its awards. On that point I disagree with him, because the Arbitration Court does not determine wages on the basis of cost of production.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– He suggested the appointment of. a board along the lines of the Tariff Board, not the Arbitration Court.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– He coupled the Tariff Board with the Arbitration Court. He said that the court fixed wages in industry, and asked why a similar authority could not be constituted for determining costs and wages in primary industries. I point out to him that the Arbitration Court ignores many “factors when dealing with the cost of living. It examines the ability of industry to pay a wage commensurate with the economic well-being of the community at large, but, on that basis, it does determine ‘ the wages of the workers, but not upon the workers’ share of production. Not only the worker, hut also the primary producer, should receive a fair share of the- wealth he produces. But that is not the basis of the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition. When the Government is returned to office in greater numerical strength,I shall urge it to set up not only an authority to determine all phases of costs in primary industries, hut also to institute an inquiry into the method of determining the basic wage along lines different from those now followed by, the Arbitration Court.

The Leader of the Opposition challenged the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to produce any evidence whatever to show that the wheat-growers have received one penny benefit from this Government under its . stabilization schemes. He knows that under the Scully plan this Government guaranteed the growers 4s. a bushel in respect of the first 3,000 bushels produced by any individual grower. That is the answer to the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition. He also said that in 1945, the growers incurred additional costs under the rural workers’ award. By agreement with the parties the Government decided that a subsidy should be paid to compensate farmers for their extra commitments under the new award. They received another lid. a bushel, so that actually, in 1944 they received 4s. 1 1/3 d. The guaranteed price last year was 4s. 3d. representing a further l$d. a bushel. The Leader of the Opposition forgot to take into consideration certain other factors that apply to wheatgrowing, just as they apply to the production of peas and other commodities. I am pleased to note that the Leader of the Opposition approves the principle of stabilization, because I am sure that some members of his party who prefer the old system would like to defeat this measure. Wheat-growers also receive assistance in the purchase of cornsacks under a subsidy scheme which costs the Commonwealth Government £1,000,000 a year, or 5s. a dozen. That enables farmers to obtain the sacks at 13s. 4½d. a dozen. Admittedly, that price is greater than it was in years gone by, but the fact remains that the price was pegged and has not risen, notwithstanding increased transport and insurance charges, and production costs.

The Government has also come to the rescue of wheat-growers who have suffered losses in recent years due to drought. It did not follow the example of previous administrations and lend money to drought stricken farmers; it made an outright gift of financial assistance. In October, 1944, the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the States agreed to pay £3,000,000 to cereal crop growers in drought’ relief, half of that sum to be contributed by the Commonwealth Government. That money was a gift, and not a loan. Since then a further £7,000,000 has been paid to cereal-growers in drought relief. Half of that sum, has been provided by the Commonwealth Government. These payments were made not merely to compensate farmers for their losses, but also to ensure that they would be able to continue in the industry.

I come now to fertilizers. Because of the difficulty experienced . by Great Britain, even in the early days of the war, in providing sufficient shipping to carry essential commodities, farmers in this country were unable to obtain adequate supplies of superphosphate and other fertilizers. At the end of 1941 of course, we were at war with Japan, and the supply of superphosphate presented a serious problem because of the occupation by Japanese forces of Nauru and Ocean Islands. In cooperation with the States and with superphosphate manufacturers, the Labour Government prepared a plan for the importation of sufficient phosphatic rock to meet the requirements in this country. That plan provided for a flat rate for superphosphate in this country with the exception of an additional 2s. 6d. a ton in Western Australia. In 1944-45 the cost of this subsidy was £3,000,000, and the estimate for 1945-46 was an additional £250,000.

To-day the subsidy is worth more than £3 a ton. I advance these figures to counter the attacks that have been made upon this Government for its alleged inactivity in past years. Going back to 1941, we find that wheat-farmers have received an enormous amount of money by way of subsidy to enable them to continue production. If we take that amount into consideration, we must also consider the way in which the Government has kept down production costs by controlling labour costs, fixing the price of superphosphate and paying subsidies, such as the cornsacks subsidy. If we do so, we shall find that the Government is expending more on the assistance of the industry than is paid into the fund by the growers. Without Government aid the farmer would be able to earn very little profit by selling his wheat at what is termed the “ world parity price “, although there is no such thing. It is true that very high prices are paid for wheat in America, but we have seen what has happened in that country as the result of the inflation of the “ Almighty dollar “. Although Americans receive high prices for their products, they must also pay exceedingly high ‘prices for the goods which they consume. The . Commonwealth Government has attempted to prevent such a tragedy in Australia, and eminent people throughout the world, who have studied prices control and economic stabilization, candidly admit that this Government has done a better job than any other government.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– This Government did not introduce prices control. .

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I know that, but during the regime of the government which introduced prices control in Australia, the cost of living increased by about 23 per cent. However, since the Labour party has been in power, the cost ofliving has been stabilized, and has increased by only 1 per cent. I give credit to the parties now in Opposition for having introduced prices control when they held office, but full credit must be given to the Labour party for making that system of control effective. The administration of prices control in’ this country is recognized as the finest in the world. I agree that a price of 9s. 6d. a bushel can be obtained for wheat on the export market to-day, but it is only right that the Government should be able to recover from that price some of the expenditure whichit has incurred in assisting thewheat industry with subsidies and in other ways. The actual expenditure on such assistancewill be considerably greater than the sum of £7,000,000 previously mentioned.

Whenthis schemewas being prepared, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture suggested that 60 per cent. of the amount by which the export price exceeds 5s. 2d. a bushel should be paid into the pool. However, after consultation with representatives of wheatgrowers’ organizations, he agreed that 50 per cent. would be sufficient for the purposes of the fund. Everybody agrees that the first payment to the growers of 5s. 2d. a bushel is reasonable. The Opposition has complained about the inclusion of the 1945-46 crop in the scheme. This matter was the subject of a conference before the bill was drafted and, because the Government did not want to accumulate a huge fund in the pool, it agreed that 50 per cent. of the amount above 5s. 2d. a bushel should be paid into the fund only up to a price of 9s. 6d. a bushel. The balance of any price above 9s. 6d. a bushel will be paid to the growers. I do not believe that any more satisfactory scheme could be evolved. The amount paid into the stabilization fund should be sufficient to pay all of the charges, including interest payments, which have been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The scheme will operate for five, years, and at the end of that time, unless the farmers want stabilization to continue, each grower will have returned to him the amount of his equity in the fund.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– By whatmeans?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I shall tell the honorable senator in five years’ time. At the moment, it is sufficient for him to know that, at the expiration of five years, farmers will be able to claim their equity in the fund.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The bill makes no provision for that.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– If the farmers do not want to continue the scheme at the end of five years, they will be able to claim the amount remaining in the fund. If they want to continue with stabilization, a bill can be introduced to carry on the scheme. The fund will be distributed, if necessary, in the same way as funds in various marketing pools were distributed at the end of each year’s operations under previous administrations, with the exception that the settlement will be made at the expiration of the five years’ term instead of annually.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– What will happen to a farmer who stops producing wheat in the meantime?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– He will be able to claim his share of the balance remaining in the fund. There may be no provision in the bill for the disbursement of the fund, but obviously that is what will be done. I am not a legal man, but the terms of the measure are quite clear. If the scheme is wound up at the end of five years the balance remaining in the pool will be distributed equitably to those who have contributed to it. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 12.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 July 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19460726_senate_17_188/>.