Senate
25 September 1924

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- BUSINESS OF THE SESSION
TERRITORY OP NEW GUINEA
- Colonel, Ainsworth’s Report
QUESTION
- SUPERANNUATION ACT
QUESTION
- SOILED BANK NOTES
QUESTION
- WAR MEMORIAL MUSEUM
QUESTION
- LEAGUE OE NATIONS’ DECISIONS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
CASE OF MUNITION WORKER J. T. DUNK
DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL
- Second Reading
PAPERS
DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Tuesday Sittings

The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4720

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if he can give honorable senators information as to the volume and magnitude of the legislation to be introduced during the remainder of the present session, and how long such legislation is likely to occupy the attention of Parliament?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The notice-paper of the Senate indicates that there is very little legislation awaiting consideration in this chamber, but ten or eleven bills are listed in another place. All of them were foreshadowed by the Government either in the speech at the opening of the’ session or in the budget. Most of them are necessary as following on the budget proposals. They should not occupy more than a couple of weeks at the outside, but the Government does not propose to adjourn Parliament until they have been dealt with.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Is it a fact that the Government has decided definitely that there shall be no more all-night sittings during the present session, and that the Government is prepared to continue with public business until Christinas time ?

Senator PEARCE:

– It is obvious that the Government could not, at this stage, say that there will be no more all-night sittings this session. Everything must depend on the manner in which business is proceeded with.

page 4720

TERRITORY OP NEW GUINEA

Colonel, Ainsworth’s Report

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to ask the Minister for Home and Territories if he has noticed, in the report furnished by Colonel John Ainsworth, on the administration and other matters affecting the interests of the natives in the Territory of New Guinea, a statement of a particularly mischievous character in these words-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator will not be in order in quoting from a printed statement.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, I ask the Minister if he has seen in that report a particularly mischievous statement, to the effect that the proposed advisory committee at Rabaul shouldbe empowered to levy taxation in proportion to the services rendered, rather than on the uptodate methods of Henry George, which have been adopted at Canberra; and, if so, will he have that particularly objectionable recommendation excised from the report ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Government has not yet had time to consider fully the report referred to.

page 4720

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION ACT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to bring down an amending Superannuation Bill this session, providing that widows of deceased Commonwealth officers will participate in the benefits of the act?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurer has furnished the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

Yes. Steps have already been taken to introduce the necessary bill in another place, and the intention of the Government is that it shall immediately become law.

page 4720

QUESTION

SOILED BANK NOTES

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Min ister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that filthy and torn tenshilling bank notes are in circulation in Sydney ?
If so, will he instruct the trading banks not to re-issue torn or dirty notes?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurer lias supplied the following answer: -

Though every effort is made by the Commonwealth Bank to secure the collection and destruction of soiled notes, it is possible some are in circulation.
Tlie Treasurer has no authority to do so, but will draw the attention of the Commonwealth Bank to the honorable senator’s question.

page 4721

QUESTION

WAR MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Senator COX:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, -upon notice -

Has the Minister asked the City Council of Sydney to grant a lease of the Exhibition Building for the purpose of exhibiting in Sydney the collection of war trophies belonging to the War Memorial Museum?
Has the council agreed to grant a lease of the Exhibition Building; and, if so, on what terms and conditions?
Has the Government agreed to accept the lease; if not, why not?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The replies to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
Yos. For a term of three years from the termination of the existing lease on 17th July, 1025, provided that the Commonwealth makes satisfactory arrangements with the existing tenant for the balance of his lease, and provided -further that the Commonwealth enters into a contract before 30th September, 1924.
No. Because the Government asked the council for a lease from the date of the expiration of the existing lease, and cannot accept the obligation which the council seeks to impose in regard .to negotiations with the existing lessee for the balance of the term of his lease.

page 4721

QUESTION

LEAGUE OE NATIONS’ DECISIONS

Australia’s Participation in Wak.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen a statement by Lord Parmoor, regarding decisions of tlie League of Nations, to the effect that in the event of war between two nations other than Great Britain, there is a possibility of Australia, as a member of the League of Nations, being called in to participate?
Will Parliament have an opportunity of discussing all or any agreements made by our delegates before Australia is finally committed to them, or have the delegates authority to bind the Commonwealth?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The’ Prime Minister has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

The statement by Lord Parmoor to which the honorable senator refers is apparently that given by him to the press and published on the 24th instant, in which, however, he stated that Australia would not be obliged to use a “military force in the event pf a dispute between other nations.

Information received by the Government indicates clearly that it is not proposed to make military or naval action obligatory on any nation. The Council may make a recommendation, but beyond that it cannot go.

The delegates have no authority to hind the Common-wealth, and Australia will not be committed to any agreements until this Parliament has an opportunity of discussing them.

page 4721

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Shipping Service Contract

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

In view of the many serious charges being made in the press and elsewhere involving a certain member of another place and a certain officer of the Home and Territories Department, and in view, too, of a statement by Mr. Nelson, M.H.B., to the effect that his name has been listed as a registered shareholder of the Boucaut Bay Company without his knowledge or consent - will the Government consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the contract entered into between the Commonwealth and the company for the maintenance of a shipping service between certain ports?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– So far as the Government is aware no responsible person has made any definite charge of corrupt or improper conduct in regard to the contract referred to that would justify an inquiry by a royal commission. The statement regarding Mr. Nelson, M.P., referred to in the question, does not appear to be one that calls for such an inquiry. In regard to the statement as to certain shares said to be held by an officer of the Home and Territories Department in the Elcho Island Naphtha Petroleum Company, action has been taken as provided for in the Public Service Act to inquire into this point, and as to its relation to the contract in question. The whole of the papers relating to the contract are open to the inspection of any honorable senator or any honorable member of the House of Representatives at the office of the Home and Territories Department.

page 4722

CASE OF MUNITION WORKER J. T. DUNK

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) agreed to-

That the time for bringing up. the report of the select committee be extended to Thursday, 23rd October.

page 4722

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Second Reading

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Elliott:

– Butter from adjoining farms often varies in quality.

Senator WILSON:

– If it is not firstgrade, choice butter, it cannot be exported under the “ kangaroo “ brand. Australia may be said to be a land of feast or famine.

– We cannot do that; but we shall do it so far as the wholesale man is concerned.

Senator Foll:

– Could not the board sell direct to the large retail distributors ?

Senator WILSON:

– No. When I was in business I never sold butter under the brand I purchased, but under the name of my own business. As my business had to be protected, I naturally sold the best, and Australia will onlymarket butter of a superior quality under its brand.

Denmark has achieved a good deal in consequence of her marketing arrangements, and butter from that country is sold in London under one brand.

– Whether or not the scheme is to be operative. There is provision in the bill requiring the board to present an exhaustive report in July of each year. What I saw when in

London confirmedme in the opinion that, if primary production in Australia is to be developed along sound lines, we must have a more satisfactory scheme for the marketing of our exportable surplus.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GARDINER:

– By that time we shall be approaching the dry season.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is nonsense. We have to’ take into consideration the wonderful improvements made in the means for the preservation of butter. In the early days, when the wife and children of a dairy farmer were employed in making butter under the most primitive methods, the wife, while the farmer was working in the fields, visited the neighbouring town, with her butter in a basket, and sold it at 6d. a lb. I have been watching the effect of additional supplies, and have been very pleased to find that the consumption of butter, which is one of our most nutritious foods, has, during the last ten years, increased. The consumption of meat and potatoes is decreasing, because they are practically beyond the purchasing power of the poorer people. Butter is one of our most valuable foods, and during recent years has been used more extensively. As many other commodities are becoming beyond the reach of the poor, people are living on a poorer diet, which will lead to race deterioration. I was pleased to see butter - one of our most valuable foods - being consumed in increasing quantities, but the “ clutching hand “ of this Government, which wants to take from the people everything which they now enjoy, made the price of that commodity 3d. per lb. dearer. It wants to take the butter from the bread of the children of those who placed it in its present position.

The Minister says that we on this side should be satisfied with this measure, because it accords with the policy of the Labour party. He spoke of state control and state boards. Possibly, I should be thankful for this one step towards the socialization of industry, but, like every other step taken by this Government, it may be retraced. If the butter factory managers do not like the bill, they have six weeks in which to signify their disapproval. But the general community, the consumers of butter, are not to be shown that consideration. Do Ministers contend that the millions who consume the butter, and who probably have never seen a butter factory, should have no say regarding this legislation ? It is merely another piece of class legislation, introduced to benefit a small section of the community. I never thought that I should live to see the Federal Parliament legislating in the direction taken by this bill. Least, of all did I expect to see this Government legislating in that direction. This measure appears to have been introduced at the request of some exporting interests who think that it will give them a “pull” somewhere. What would honorable senators now on the other side say if, in the next Parliament, when five of their number are sitting; on this side of the Senate, and 31 members of the Labour party occupy seats to the right of the Chair, legislation were in troduced to assist the boiler-makers, and a clause were inserted to provide that if they did not like the bill, and signified their disapproval within six weeks, it would not become law ? If a Labour Government introduced legislation affecting carpenters, engineers, or wharf labourers, which provided that it would be subject to the approval of the unions concerned, what would honorable members opposite say then ? They could only say that they had assisted to pass the first legislation of the Federal Parliament which was subject to the approval of an irresponsible outside body.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- I thought that after the very interesting address delivered by Senator Gardiner, some member on the other side would have risen to speak. In my opinion this bill is misnamed. It is supposed to be a bill “Relating to the Export of Dairy Produce,” but its title should be: “ An act to establish a corner in butter and other dairy produce.’’ Clause 2 provides: -

Sections one, two, five and thirty of this act shall commence on the day on which this act receives tlie Royal assent and the remaining sections of this act shall commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation :

Provided that a proclamation under this section shall not issue unless and until, at a poll of producers taken in the prescribed manner throughout the Commonwealth, a majority of votes have been given in favour of the act being brought into operation.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Government,instead ofseeking real control of the industry, proposes to handover control to the board. This is not socialism by any means. If it were, I would support the bill. The reflex action ofthis measure will be an increase in the local price of butter, in orderto make up the leeway on London losses. That is the main objection which I have to the bill: Every honorable senator knows perfectly “well that one effect will be to increase the price of butter to local consumers.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course. What else is it for ?

SenatorCrawford. - Is cheap butter the slogan of the honorable senator’s party ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– A movement has been started in the Northern Rivers district of New South Wales to link up a number of co-operative butter factories, which have been marketing through cooperative selling channels, to start their own selling floor, or amalgamate with the

Byron Bay Company. The reason for this is that the present co-operative selling organization in that state has fallen into discredit with the producers. I can see in this one reason why the Government has been induced to bring down this measure. The people concerned are seeking to free themselves from the control now sought to be imposed on those engaged in the industry by this measure. The bill is really designed to eliminate, by statute, the freedom of producers to control their own affairs. I do not object to governmental control in all matters of this nature, provided there is real governmental control. In this case there is not. The measure appears to have been framed on lines similar to the New Zealand legislation.

Senator Reid:

– If it brings the same results, it will prove to be good legislation.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I will tell the honorable senator what has happened there. A similar measure was passed in New Zealand about eighteen months ago, and a board of control was appointed. That body, after visiting various parts of the world and acquiring knowledge of the export business, decided not to exercise the functions conferred upon it by the act. New Zealand sells 50 per cent. of its output on f.o.b. basis. A scheme similar to the bill now before the Senate was, . I believe, prepared by Senator Greene when he was a member of another place and Minister for Trade and Customs. That scheme, upon being submitted to a referendum of producers, was rejected by a substantial majority. Whether this proposal is a facsimile of that prepared by Senator Greene I do not know, but in that case the producers, when appealed to, turned it down. Tin’s bill will eliminate free marketing for the benefit of a number of co-operative trading concerns. It will impose a measure of hardship on the people by directly taxing the producer in order to create certain positions for interested persons, the result of which will be an increase in the local price of butter. The following is an extract from an interview with Mr. Meares, published in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22nd instant: -

As with all self-help movements by and for producers, there had been considerable organized opposition to the bill, and certain clauses had been inserted. However, the general consensus of opinion during the progress of the bill in the House was that amendments would be secured in committee bringing it more into line with the full proposals submitted to the Government by the Interstate Dairy Conference last month.

At the conclusion of the interview Mr. Meares, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, made the following further statement : -

The ‘Australian bill also suggests that a poll of suppliers of all factories be taken before the act. becomes operative; this will be opposed, and the suggestion of conference that a poll be taken in two years strongly advocated. There will also be considerable opposition to the additional member suggested as representative of selling agents oversea. Steadier markets achievable by organized marketing under statute will materially assist the producers of both Australia and New Zealand by uplifting the average price, both locally and in London, and should be the means of giving to all concerned a definite productive and marketing security, which is so lacking in this industry tit the present moment. [ am at all times desirous of helping the dairying industry, but I think that it can be assisted without inflicting upon the consumers of Australia an increased price for their butter. The Minister referred to the necessity for uniformity, and said that if the marketing of our butter in London were organized, as in the case of New Zealand butter’, we should get an additional £500,000 a year. The N’ew Zealand butter obtains a higher price because the quality is uniform, on account of the standardized manufacture and also the pastures; whereas Australian butter varies in colour, texture, and quality in each state, and in every district of each state, because of the difference in the pasture, the climate, and the conditions under which it is manufactured. How the bill will affect the position I do not know. It has been very badly prepared. I should like to have seen a referendum of the producers taken before it was introduced. I intend to move at least one amendment in committee, to try to make the bill more acceptable.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Honorable senators opposite evidently look at the bill from different angles. Senator Gardiner approves of it to a certain extent because, he says, there is evidence of socialism in it. Senator Needham, on the other hand, is wholly opposed to it on the ground that it does not contain any socialism. When the Leader and Whip of the party opposite hold such widely divergent views, it is difficult to determine what are the views of the party upon the measure. Honorable senators opposite can find no fault with the bill, and they are seeking some excuse for opposing it, merely because it has been brought down by the Government. No reason has been advanced from the other side for even altering the provisions of the bill. Senator Gardiner said that it is a step in the direction of the nationalization of industry. If it is, I am converted to that policy. But a comparison of the bill with the policy of the Labour party in regard to the nationalization of industry will show that the two are as wide apart as the poles. As it is preached publicly by honorable senators opposite, the nationalization of industry is the running of an industry by the Government, the profits, if there are any, going into the Consolidated Revenue. We know, from our experience of Queensland, that there are no profits from a nationalized industry. Generally, huge deficits are incurred, which have to be made up by the taxpayers. What is the proposal of the Government here? It is simply to assist a certain section of the primary producers to organize their industry. If honorable senators opposite really believe that collective effort is better than individual effort, I fail to see how they can criticize the bill. Senator Wilson quoted interesting figures, and related his experiences in London, to show the unfavorable position occupied by Australia in the marketing of its butter. Other countries have organized the industry in such a way as to ensure that there shall be uniform grading, and the purchaser may know instantly the class of butter he is buying. The disadvantages under which Australia has been labouring have caused the primary producers to lose a very large sum of money. Senator Needham, whose speech had evidently been prepared for him, argued that if the bill . became law ‘ it would necessarily have the effect of increasing the price of butter to the consumer in Australia. I fail to see in the bill anything that will bring about an increase in the price to the local consumer. We are compelled to accept London parity for nearly all the primary products that we export. If the whole of the production were sold at London parity, the price obtained would not always return to the producer the cost of production. Consequently, since Australia has been an exporter of butter the price of Australian butter on the

London market has been less than that at which it is sold in Australia, for the simple reason that it is necessary to sell in London ata pricethat will enable us to compete with other countries.

Senator Graham:

-Doesthehonorable senator not think itwould be better to first supply thedemand in Australia ?

Senator FOLL:

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Any one who has had experience of dairy farming knows that of all the occupations in which a person may engage, it is about the least desirable.

Not only is the work incessant, hut it is’ painfully monotonous. It does not matter whether the day is hot or cold, wet or dry, whether it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday, the cows must be attended to. Dairy farming is probably the nearest approach to slavery of any occupation followed to-day in the Commonwealth. Should any one doubt the accuracy of that statement, let Mm obtain- some practical, experience for himself. It is true that during recent years the introduction of milking machines and other conveniences ha3 to a limited extent lessened the hardships, but it is; nevertheless, not an occupation to be desired. When we are asked to do something which is alleged to be in the interests of the dairying community, we should carefully examine the proposal before deciding to reject it. I am not satisfied that this measure will benefit the dairy farmer and the dairying industry generally. Indeed, I hope to show with unmistakable clearness that it will convenience another section of the community. Any honorable senator who then votes for the bill will do so with his eyes open. The Minister gave us some facts, with which most of us were already familiar. It is, apparently, necessary to-day to export a fair proportion of the butter manufactured in the Commonwealth, and, naturally, we look to the Old Country as the proper outlet for that butter. Australian butter is equal to that produced anywhere in the world.

Senator Thompson:

– The Danish butter is ahead of it.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think that any butter can excel that produced in Australia, but higher prices are realized for Argentine, Denmark, and New Zealand butter.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– Australian butter commands a better price than Argentine butter.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I doubt if the average price per lb. received for Argentine butter differs very much from that received for Australian butter. The reason that Australian butter has, year after year, failed to command a satisfactory price in the London market is that concerted action has not been taken by the butter producers of Australia. Great Britain requires such large quantities of butter that the small quantity that comes from Australia is not of great import ance to them, although it is to us. Approximately 453 different brands of Australian butter from time to time make their appearance on the London market. No matter how much a person in England may desire to use Australian butter, he would need to know a great deal about the butter business to be able to say definitely that a certain brand of butter came from Australia. In those circumstances, those who offer, in England, Australian butter of inferior quality are doing the industry a great injury. This proposal, according to the Minister, is in accord with the policy of the Australian Labour party, and should, therefore, have the support of honorable senators on this side. The Government will find it impossible to remain at the point to which this bill brings us. More will have to be done if we are to keep pace with the exporters of butter from other countries. This is essentially an age of organization. The industry which fails to organize and take concerted action, must, in the keen competition which prevails to-day, be left behind. Speaking of concerted action, I am reminded of the industry displayed by the members of the legal fraternity to conserve their own interests. Because of their determined and concerted action, their fees have increased considerably.

Senator Thompson:

– Is the fee not still 6s. Sd.?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable senator is years behind the times. To-day, these legal gentlemen demand guineas every time. A person may enter a lawyer’s office for 10s. 6d., but if he opens his mouth it costs him a guinea. If the legal gentleman replies, one does not know the limit of the fee which may be asked. In that case, a man might just as well hand over his bank account. Aided by the Government, these gentlemen have organized in their own interests. If any one attempts to do their work, and to charge for such service, he is liable to a severe penalty. It does not matter how efficiently that work is done. The charges levied on their unfortunate clients ‘by these gentlemen constitute an outrage. Honorable senators sometimes speak of the levies of Labour unions, but they do not like to be reminded of these things that I have mentioned. If a person purchases a block of land, the desire of those who introduced the Torrens system of titles is not achieved because of the excessive charges of the lawyers. This bill does not rely upon the voluntary efforts of the organization to secure payment. If we examine it, we shall find that if a person fails to furnish certain returns he is liable to a penalty. That penalty is not the insignificant sum which a union member would be called upon to pay, but it is the considerable sum of £100. We are asked to endorse va measure- containing a provision of that nature. The levies of theLabour unions, to which reference is sofrequently made, are as trifles compared with the exactions imposed on the people of this country by the organization’ to- which Senators Drake-Brockman, Elliott, and other legal members belong. It is time that we realized the necessity for taking steps to reduce the exorbitant fees now charged by the members of the legal fraternity.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator is out of order. There is no reference in the bill to legal fees.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thought I would be permitted to reply to Senator Elliott’s interjections earlier in the debate, and to show what members of his profession were doing. The bill has been prepared in a -most slip-shod fashion. We are really dealing with two measures. One clause makes reference tothe Dairy Produce Export Charges Act 1924. I pay close attention to the business of the Senate. I attend with clocklike regularity. I am a full-time” senator, and yet I have never seen the Dairy Produce Export Charges- Act of 1924, which is referred to in this bill. It may be quite true that government interference with, private enterprise is always more or less unsatisfactory, but it should be noted that the concerns which governments handle are usually the most difficult, and generally lead to trouble. The bill provides for the appointment of a board of control consisting of thirteen or fourteen members. In my opinion it will be a costly body. If its operations disclose a deficit the Commonwealth Government should not be called upon to make good’ the loss, although I have no doubt that it will be. The board is to be endowed with very, extensive powers. It may prohibit the export from the Commonwealth to Europe of dairy produce except in accordance with a licence to be issued by the Minister, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as the board approves. It is to be given control, of one of. the most essential commodities in. the Commonwealth. If instead of’ bringing down a scheme to supply the best of Australian butter- to foreigners overseas, the Government had given more, attention to the proper organization of the butter supply for consumption in the Commonwealth, Ministers would have rendered some service. It is well known that the best of Australian production is always exported, and that the local consumer has to be content with second quality produce. We should carefully consider this proposal to endow the board with such plenary powers in respect of our- dairy products. In pursuance of my policy to show practical sympathy for the man on the land I endeavoured some time ago to secure an amendment of the Income Tax Act by relieving the taxpayer of the necessity to furnish in his return particulars of any increases in his cattle1, sheep, and horses. Unfortunately, the Government opposed that -amendment, but clause 20 of this bill provides that the income of the- fund to be established from the levy shall not be subject to taxation by the Commonwealth- or a state. This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but the- Minister has not explained why the benefit of the exemption is to be confined to this fund. If the principle is good it ought to be extended to all primary producers.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:

– I cannot see why honorable senators opposite should raise any serious objection to the dairy farmers of Australia getting an increased price for their product. Everybody else in the community has been able to get an increase, because of the increased cost of production. The wages of workers have very rightly gone up and up to meet the increase in the cost of living. The price of almost all necessaries of life has increased because of theenormously increased cost of production, brought about mainly by worldwide economic factors over which we in Australia have no control. If it be right to re-adjust economic values in accordance with the increased cost in all other industries, it is only fair, after all, that the dairy farmer should not be treated differently from any other section of the community. If wages, which are regarded as the reward for the labour of the worker, are to be increased to meet the increased cost of living, surely it is only right that the dairy farmer should have an increase in the reward for his labour in the shape of the price of the butter he produces. His costs have gone up; the wages he has to pay have increased ; the price of the implements he uses has enormously increased and. the cost of his clothing and food has increased. Yet, honorable senators opposite tell us that it is absolutely wrong for this Parliament to sanction a measure which may have the effect of somewhat increasingthe price of butter to the local consumer.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It will have that effect.

Senator DUNCAN:

– It is not a sine quanon that the price of butter will be increased if this bill is passed. The board has only the power to regulate the price in London. Clause 20 defines the powers of the board. It will be given power to handle the following matters: -

The handling, marketing, and storage of the dairy produce;
The shipment of the dairy produce on such terms and in such quantities as it thinks fit;
The sale and disposal of dairy produce on such terms as it thinks fit;
The insurance against loss of any such dairy produce either in the Commonwealth or in transit from the Commonwealth, and until disposed of ; and
All such matters as are necessary for the due discharge of its functions in handling, distributing; and disposing of the dairy produce.

That is governed by clause 14, which reads -

For the purpose of enabling the board effectively to control the export and the sale and distribution after export of Australian dairy produce, the Governor-General may by proclamation prohibit the export from the Commonwealth to Europe of any dairy produce except in accordance with alicence issued by the Minister subject to such conditions and restrictions as the board approves.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– If the private firms now dealing with the matter - particularly in London - were doing the work efficiently and satisfactorily, there would be no interference by the Government. But they having failed, the Government in the interests of the industry is to step in. That places the industry on a national basis. To the extent that I have mentioned, the bill is to be welcomed, but I should prefer that the producers should elect the board in the first place. While the Government should have the right to nominate certain members of the board, its members, for the most part, should be elected by the producers themselves, and not by the direct tors of the co-operative factories. If that were done, there would be no necessity for a vote of producers to be taken later. The board will be rather unwieldy, but as there is a provision in clause 11 for the appointment of an executive of five, who will discharge the main functions of the board, the size of the board itself is of less moment. I understand that the reason for the somewhat unwieldy board is the desire of the Government that all the states shall be represented on it. The main objection which has been raised to the bill is that it may increase the price of butter to the consumers in Australia. I do not think that it will. The object of the measure is not, as some honorable senators imagine, to increase the price of butter. No bill which we may pass here could affect the price of butter in London. The underlying principle of the bill is not to raise the price of butter, but to raise the standard of the butter which is exported, so that it will command the highest price paid in the London market. At present, owing to the large number of brands under which Australian butter is exported, the manipulation of middlemen and exploiters, and because our butter is not equal in quality to that produced in some other countries, we do not receive for it the highest price paid in that market. But, by seeing that only the best quality butter is exported, and that that butter shall be branded accordingly, we shall be able to command the best price paid in the overseas markets. If the position is as I have stated, I fail to see how the price of butter in Australia will be increased. But even if it were increased, I agree with Senator Duncan that we should not sweat the dairy farmer in order to supply a cheaper article to the consumer.

Reference has been made to the improved conditions in the dairying industry made possible by the introduction of milking machines and other machinery. This afternoon I read of an. interview with Mr. Henry Ford in which he stated that, just as mechanical inventions had, to a large extent, done away with horses, so would science ultimately do away with the necessity for cows. He stated that the constituents of milk were known to science, and that it should not be impossible to produce milk without cows. That time has not yet arrived. In the meantime we should endeavour to improve the conditions of the dairy farmers, whose work is both long and arduous, and whose profits are small. To the extent that it will assist them, I welcome the bill. In committee it may be possible to improve it. The various pools which were formed during the war cost the taxpayers of this country a considerable amount, but as the expenses in this case will be met by the producers themselves, the general taxpayers are protected. In clause 14 there is a provision which might operate injuriously; but, as its exercise is optional, its effect might not be so serious. I am supporting the second reading of the bill. It is not a party matter, as Senator Duncan seemed to infer. Labour members in another place treated it as a non-party measure. Some voted for it, and some against it, but the majority favoured the main principle of the hill, and I want to remove the impression in the minds of some honorable senators that Labour, as a whole, is opposed to it. It is an open question with members on this side of the chamber.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– It has been suggested that one reason why the bill should be opposed is because its probable effect will be to increase the cost of butter to the Australian consumer. Like the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat, I do not think it will do that, but even if it did, that would not be a good and sufficient reason for opposition to it by honorable senators on this side. Arbitration Court awards protect the worker in his wages, so that if the cost of living rises, as the result of an increase in the cost of butter following the adoption of this scheme, the workers may appeal to the Arbitration Court for a corresponding increase in wages. I have had some experience in the dairying industry. For many years I followed the occupation of a dairy farmer, so I know some of the disadvantages under which dairymen labour. It is generally recognized as a sweated industry. I do not know of any calling which more nearly approaches conditions of slavery than the dairying industry. Those engaged in it have to toil for sixteen hours a clay for 365 days of the year in order to make ends meetNo section of the community is more deserving of assistance. Returns recently furnished by the Queensland Cooperative Dairy Company at Boonah, one of the largest co-operative dairying concerns in Queensland, showed that the average return to the dairy farmer in 1921 was £4 10s. per week, and in 1923 it was less than £2 10s. per week. In 1921 the society produced 9,312,000 lb. of butter, and in 1924 4,692,000 lb. 6 The ‘total amount paid for, cream in 1921 was £664,925, and in 1923 “£323,808. The average amount paid to each supplier in 1921 was £233 lis., and in 1923 it was £123 6s lid. The average quantity of butter produced from each supplier’s cream in 1921 was 3,271 lb., and in 1923 it was 2,055 lb. The average number of suppliers in 1921 was 2,807, and in 1923 it was 2,283. These figures relate to dairy farmers on some of the richest dairying land in Queensland.’ “When I was in the industry I frequently finished work at midnight, and was up again at 5 o’clock in the morning. Reference has been made to the success of the New Zealand legislation, but as the New Zealand act was only passed in 1923, no one is in a position to say definitely that it has had any material effect on the export trade from the dominion. The strong position of New Zealand on the London market is due, in my opinion, to close attention given in the dominion to the grading of cream and the building up of high class herds. In the debate this afternoon, one honorable senator, by way of interjection, inquired how butter was graded. Butter is not graded at all. Cream is graded at the factory, and first-class cream produces first-grade butter. New Zealand, by permitting the exportation of only first-grade butter, commands very high prices on the London market. If we gave as much attention to the building up of our dairy herds as we- have to the organization of the wool industry, in all probability we should be able to claim that we produce not only the best wool in the world, but’ also the best butter and cheese. Senator Wilson this afternoon suggested’ that my knowledge of the dairying industry was confined to the dairy cattle one sees in the Adelaide park lands. I remind the honorable senator that many of the dairy cows grazing in the park lands of that city would do credit to the best dairy farm in Australia. Some of the best Jerseys in South Australia are to be seen in the Adelaide park lands. It costs no more to keep a well-bred animal than one of mongrel breed. Unfortunately, this fact is not generally recognized by our dairymen. Senator Guthrie, in this chamber some time ago, drew attention to Australia’s unsatisfactory position, and quoted figures in proof of his contention that, speaking generally, the dairy herds in Australia were not nearly so good as they should be. If we wish to be a great butter and cheeseproducing country, we must give close attention to the important factors which I have mentioned. We must aim at a more careful selection of our dairy herds, and pay closer attention to the grading of cream and cheese. There is no reason why Australia should not occupy the front rank as a dairying country. The bill, it is hoped, will give to the dairyman, something approaching London parity for his product. I do not see how any one can possibly object to that. In Australia there are about 150,000 dairymen working long hours on every day of the week for a pittance. Comparatively few of them have a banking account worth speaking about. On the other hand, the men who farm the ‘farmers’ - and they are to be found in every city of the Commonwealth - are doing very well. The middlemen, who fleece, rob, and cheat the farmer, increase their banking accounts, whilst the unfortunate dairy farmer becomes poorer and poorer. A few years ago, in my state, an agent in the butter line died leaving a banking account of £60,000. All along the line the middleman benefits. The consumer gets nothing; tho producer gets about the same. The right thing would have been for the Government to wipe out the middleman, undertake the exporting itself, and give to the primary producer the full results. Middlemen are unnecessary, and are “not wanted on the voyage.” In this measure the Government is giving the dairy farmer a very poor skeleton. A redeeming feature, however, is that the primary producers will be able to decide whether they shall accept or reject the scheme. They expect to gain something from it, and I trust that they will. 1 do not think that any. injury will be done to the consumer. Even if the cost of one-eighth of a penny per 1-lb. that will be incurred to administer the bill is added to the price that the consumer is asked to pay, he will not object if the primary producer benefits. I think that the Government has acted somewhat unfairly towards South Australia. This afternoon, when Senator Benny asked why South Australia is to be given only one representative on the board, the Minister replied, “ South Australia does not produce very much butter for export.” Is the numerical strength of representation of each state on the board .to .be decided according to the number of co-operative or proprietary butter factories in each state? In New South Wales there are 106 cooperative companies and 15 proprietary companies. In Victoria, the numbers are 87 and 66, in Queensland 43 and 3, and in South Australia 10 and 33 respectively. New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland are each to have two representatives, whilst South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania are each to have only one. In Western Australia there are 9 co-operative companies and 1 proprietary company, and in Tasmania there are 15 and 5 . respectively; yet those states will have on the board the same representation that is to be given to South Australia. Judged by the number of its factories, South Australia is entitled to have two members on the board. I hope that the Government will make that provision. If it did so, it would treat South Australia fairly. Senator Gardiner this afternoon said that he supported the bill because it is flavoured with socialization on the one hand and nationalization on the other hand. I do not think that there is a very strong flavour of nationalization about it, because under that policy the profits derived from an industry go to the state. The bill is, however, righly flavoured with socialization, under which policy those who are engaged in any industry have control of it. The Labour party believes in the socialization of industry for that reason. I hope that the bill will meet with the success that it deserves. One honorable senator said that honorable senators on this side are not prepared to support the bill. When he made that statement he had not heard the views of every honorable senator here. There are at least two who will support the motion for the second reading of the bill. We wish the dairy farmers every success, aud hope that the measure will confer a benefit upon them.

Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I should not have risen had it not been for the tirade of abuse that was levelled by Senator Foll at unfortunate honorable senators on this side. I am very pleased to think that there is not another honorable senator opposite who would be guilty of such mud-slinging, under cover of supporting this bill. After many years of hard work in the Labour movement, we have been returned to the Senate to represent a class in the community. Senator Foll is an accidental senator, and he should be the last one to throw .mud at honorable senators on this side. He put into Senator Gardiner’s mouth words that that honorable senator did not use, and insulted Sena. tor Needham by saying that some one had prepared the speech that he delivered. He then went on to read his own speech, and, at its conclusion, he sat alongside the Minister, who said, “ A good speech.” If that is the Minister’s idea of a good speech, I have not much respect for his judgment. Senator Foll then rubbed shoulders with other honorable senators on his side, to obtain their appreciation of his wonderful effort on behalf of the Government. Whilst he was speaking, I interjected that the dairy farmers had again returned a Labour Government to power in Queensland, and he said that I was wrong. He abused the Labour party in Queensland for gerrymandering the electorates, and said that but for that the National party would easily have won the elections. Senators Crawford and Sir Thomas Glasgow also expressed their opinions. I do not think that any of those honorable senators had gone to the trouble to find out the details of the poll in Queensland at the last state elections. I have been to the electoral office, and I have in my possession particulars relating to the votes that were polled in every electorate in Queensland.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Sena tor Newland). - Does the honorable senator think that that has any relation to the bill?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I do not; but, as Senator Foll was allowed to use the expressions that he did,I thought that I should be permitted to refer to these figures. I did not intend to read the whole of them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator may make a passing reference to them.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The figures are -

When the Standing Orders permit, I shall place on record the whole of the figures, and put an end to incorrect statements by these blustering, crowing persons from Queensland.

Senator Thompson:

– I shall refute the honorable senator’s figures.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The honorable senator cannot do it; they have been obtained from the electoral registrar in Queensland, and are accurate in every detail. In this Parliament I do not represent any state ; I represent Australia as a whole. I rose merely to say that if the practice continues of throwing mud at honorable senators on this side, I shall show that I am as capable as anybody of throwing mud and making it stick. As for the bill itself, I do not object to the principle of it. But I do and always shall, object to any legislation that increases the cost of administration, and allows boards to do work that rightly belongs to this Parliament. This is the worst example we have had of that practice. The board to be appointed will have powers that should not be given to any body created by Parliament. It will be a super-Parliament. It will have the right to say to a dairy farmer, “You shall not export your butter unless you obtain a licence from us to do so.” I do not think that the members of the Labour party really approve of this portion of the bill. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) recently stated that politics had reached such a pass that a small sectional party can blackmail the numerically strong National party. I believe that that has been done on this occasion. In another place the Prime Minister accepted an amendment that absolutely destroyed the effect of the bill. When it was accepted the members of the Country party said, “We have wasted our time ; the bill is absolutely valueless.” Mr. Bruce also said that it is impossible to maintain our White Australia policy, or our present standard of living, or to ensure our national safety, unless we increase our population. This is a means by which he desires to increase the population. The Labour party will, under any circumstances, always fight for a White Australia. We say, as Mr. Bruce says, that every man must be a producer. We shall welcome in unlimited numbers our brothers from Great Britain so long as work is found for them when they arrive here. But we object to other persons being brought here whilst unemployment exists. That is our position. It is exactly the same as that taken up by Mr. Bruce, who went on to say -

But it is no use to increase our population unless every individual who enters the country becomes a productive unit.

We say exactly the same. Mr. Bruce is simply carrying out the policy of the Labour movement, that every man who comes to Australia shall become a productive unit. “Unfortunately many people are coming here who do not become productive units. They come here with the idea that they can get a good living and do very little for it. They come with the old idea that they can pick up gold in the streets. Every man who comes to Australia must be prepared, as the pioneers were, to go out into the backblocks and make a home for himself and his family. I am afraid that the men who are coming to Australia to-day are not of that class,, and that, unless the type of immigrant is very much altered, they will not become productive units, but will help to overload our cities. However, it is very interesting to hear a statement like this from the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that his Government are bringing thousands of people to Australia when there are already thousands of unemployed here. Mr Bruce also said -

It may be that this bill is the right step to take to develop the necessary markets abroad, but if it is not, some other steps must be taken, for the problem must be solved.

That is what we say. We think the problem must be solved. But it will not be solved by helping this or that industry in the way the Government proposes. The keynote has been struck by Senator Hoare, who declares that the breed of our dairy cattle is fast deteriorating. Senator Guthrie said the same thing not long ago. The Government must take steps to improve the breed of our herds so that we may be in a position to compete with the people of other countries. The butter and other produce of Argentine can be placed on the breakfast table in Great Britain within four weeks. We have to fight against the handicap of our distance from the world’s markets. We must find means to bring markets closer to us. If we concentrate on something that will counteract the great handicap of the long journey across the seas we shall do something to solve our greatest problem. In another place, Dr. Earle Page said-

The bill now before the House represents the most important advance made in the development of the butter industry since refrigeration was commercialized.

Although Mr. Bruce is uncertain of what the bill will do, Dr. Earle Page appears to he absolutely certain, indicating clearly where the measure has originated. I shall not oppose it if it will improve the conditions of any individual worker in Australia. We are told by Senator Crawford that most dairymen are the owners of the land they work, and they cannot be too badly off if there is a high market value for their land. We hear of very few dairymen going out of business. When the estates of many persons who have been associated with applications to the Commonwealth Parliament for assistance for various industries have been proved for the assessment of probate duties, very often they have been found to be worth £50,000 to £100,000, and in some cases as much as £200,000 or £300,000. None of them are paupers. No doubt Australia has passed through some very strenuous times j but surely with all the bountiful seasons the primary producers have recently enjoyed there should be no need for a bill of this kind. According to the measure butter cannot be exported without a licence issued by the Minister for Trade and Customs. To stifle enterprise on the part of those who are attempting to make good in Australia is wrong. In the issue of licences the Minister will be guided by the recommendation of a board which will consist of outsiders quite beyond Government control. The board can tell any individual that he must hold a licence before he can export butter, but it can also take very good care that he does not get a licence. It is a cruel comment on the industrial life of. Australia that an irresponsible board can tell a man that he must not export his produce unless they license him to do so. One member of the board only is to be chosen by the Commonwealth Government. Six members are to be elected by the directors of co-operative butter factories. They are to be elected not by the down-trodden producers we have heard of to-night, but by managers of factories. I do not think these men should have any voice in the election of a board which is to control a great Australian industry. The principle advanced is not only wrong, but in my opinion corrupt, and one that should never be allowed a footing in a democratic community. One member of the board is to be elected by people outside Australia. What right has any section of people outside Australia to dictate to the Government and the producers of Australia what shall be done with Australia’s butter?* I am not opposed to assisting the dairymen and butter producers of Australia, but I contend that the work should be done by the Government and not by an outside body appointed by persons who are not responsible to this Parliament. In my opinion a Minister of the Crown can control this business more effectively than a board. Dr. Earle Page said -

Up to 1010 dairy production had practically doubled, but in the following decade . . . dairymen were entirely discouraged. The result was stagnation of the industry.

– The speeches to which we have listened have been varied in character, and some of them so contradictory that I am unable to decide in which way certain honorable senators will vote. I still believe, however, that the majority will support the bill. I realize that its success will depend upon those who administer it. If the board gives close personal attention ‘ to its work, I believe we shall get over many of the difficulties to which I referredwhen introducing the bill. We do not anticipate that we shall be able to accomplish everything, but we do say that the producers are entitled to receive the protection that they seek. It would be impossible to consult personally every primary producer, but the Government has obtained the views of the organizations that represent them. The questions that have been raised during the debate I shall answer in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 4759

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

New Guinea - Ordinances of 1924 -

No. 32-Supply . (No. 2) 1924-26.

No. 33- Transfer of Land Control (No. 2).

page 4759

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator Wilson) read a Bret time.

page 4760

ADJOURNMENT

Tuesday Sittings

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I do not think it will be necessary to ask honorable senators to sit on Tuesday. The progress that we are making is such that I think we can dispense with Tuesday as a sitting day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 September 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240925_senate_9_109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 September 1924

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

TERRITORY OP NEW GUINEA

Colonel, Ainsworth’s Report

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION ACT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

SOILED BANK NOTES

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

WAR MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Senator COX:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

LEAGUE OE NATIONS’ DECISIONS

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

CASE OF MUNITION WORKER J. T. DUNK

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL

Second Reading

Senator WILSON:Honorary Minister · South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator Gardiner:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Elliott:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Elliott:

Senator WILSON:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WILSON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator Duncan:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Elliott:

Senator WILSON:

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator WILSON:

Senator H Hays:

Senator WILSON:

Senator H Hays:

Senator WILSON:

Senator H Hays:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Benny:

Senator WILSON:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WILSON:

Senator Foll:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Foll:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Foll:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator WILSON:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator WILSON:

Senator Duncan:

Senator WILSON:

Senator O’Loghlin:

Senate
25 September 1924

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator COX:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928