12th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 4787
Senator BARNES (Victoria- Vice-
President of the Executive Council) [11.0].-by leave- On behalf of the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) I make the following statement : - “In view of the published statements regarding the reduction ofbank rates of interest, I.desire to make a statement regarding the action taken by the Commonwealth Government in this matter. “ On the 13th June, immediately after my return to Canberra from the Premiers Conference, I asked SirRobert Gibson as Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank, to call a conference of banks at the earliest possible moment to discuss matters arising out of the conference, including : -
How finance necessary for effectively carrying out the plans of the conference could best be arranged.
The support to be given by the banks in connexion with the conversion of their holdings of Commonwealth and State securities and in connexion with the general conversion plan.
Finalizing the question of the reduction of rates of interest on bank and savings bank advances and deposits.
Financial assistance to necessitous wheat-growers and advances to industries and governments for creating employment. “On the 1st July, SirRobert Gibson informed me that as a result of the conference the following action had been taken : -
Commonwealth Bank. -Reduction of 1 per cent. in interest, on both deposits and advances as from June 26th and July 1st, respectively.
Trading Banks. -Reduction of 1 per cent. in respect of deposits as from 26th June. Immediate reduction of 1 per cent. on advances in necessitous cases and gradual reduction generally.
Commonwealth Savings Bank. Reduction of 1 per cent. in respect of depositsas from 1st July and concurrently reduction of interest on securities held by the bank in respect of municipal and similar loans conditional on no rate being reduced to less than 4 per cent.
State Savings Banks. -Reduction of interest rates by 1 per cent. in South Australia and Western Australia. No decision then arrived at by the State Savings Bank of Victoria. “ SirRobert Gibson also advised that the other ‘ matters had not then been finalized. “ Negotiations. have since been continued by the Government through the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank. The position in regard to these negotiations was summed up in a letter which I wrote to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank on 23rd July. I then said: -
In the first place, I must say quite frankly that the Governmentis much concerned and greatly disappointed in regard to the action of the banks since the Premiers Conferencewas adjourned.
The banks have, for a considerable time, urged the need for the balancing of budget*, particularly by the reduction of governmental expenditure, and they have given the governments to understand that, on the adoption of a plan to that end, they would do everything in their power not only to assist in the rehabilitation of Government finance, but also to sustain industry and restore employment.
At the Melbourne conference, a plan involving a reduction of governmental expenditure was adopted. As regards this plan, the conference said:- “ The conference has, therefore, adopted a plan which combines all possible remedies in such a way that the burden falls as equally as possible on every one, and no considerable section of the people is left in a privileged position. This sharing of the burden is necessary to make the load mora tolerable; It is still more necessary because only on’ this condition will it be possible to get the combined effort required.
The plan has been adopted by the conference as a whole, each part of which is accepted on the understanding that all the other parts are equally and simultaneously put into operation. It embraces the following measures: -
A reduction of 20 per cent. in all adjustable government expenditure, as compared with the year ending 30th June, 1930, including all emoluments, wages, salaries and “ pensions paid by the . governments, whether fixed by statute or otherwise, such reduction to be equitably effected ;
Conversion of the internal debts of the Governments on the basis of a 22½ per cent. reduction of interest ;
The securing of additional revenue by taxation, both Commonwealth and State;
d ) A reduction of bank and savings bank rates of interest on deposits and advances ;
Relief in respect of private mortgages.”
The conference also reported that, concurrently with the reduction of interest on bonds, must go a reduction in. private interest.
The conference undoubtedly believed that the plan had the full support of bankers, and that the banks would gladlyco-operate with the Governments in carrying It out.
One of the basic principles of the plan was that all parts should be simultaneously put into operation and that the burden should be shared as equally as possible; but whilst the Governments have by legislative action, required wage-earners, pensioners, bond-holders and others to accept sacrifices, the banks have not taken all the action which the conference firmly believed would be taken by them simultaneously with the Governments. There is most certainly a growing feeling that the banks arc unwilling to accept their share of the necessary sacrifices. This is undesirable not only from the point of view of the banks, but also in the national interests.
I note the banks say that at no time have they given any undertaking that interest rates would be reduced on any definitely quoted figure, but that a suggested reduction of 1 per cent. has been the subject of discussion at various times and the banks have accepted this as the object to be achieved as early as possible.
As chairman of the conference, I say definitely that the discussions regarding bank interest were based on the conviction that a reduction of not less than 1 per cent. would be made by the banks in interest rates on deposits and advances, and that if the conference had not believed the banks intended making such reductions, further action would have been taken by the conference.
I quite realize that an immediate reduction of 1 per cent. in the rates for advances would involve some sacrifice on the part of the banks, as although the rates for new deposits have been reduced by 1 per cent., the banks could make no reduction in the rates on deposits then existing. Whilst it is true that the simultaneous reduction of the rates for deposits and advances must involve the banks in some loss, it must be remembered that simultaneous increases in both rates have been made in the past, with resulting gain to the banks.
Though the conference understood that the banks would convert their holdings in the event of a national conversion loan being issued, the banks do not, in the letter now under notice, definitely say that they will convert. What they say is that, at a certain stage, they will announce their intention in regard to converting their holdings.
The support of the banks to the conversion loan is of great importance, as success cannot be expected unless the banks give a definite lead by converting their own holdings and strongly supporting the operation in other directions.
The banks say they will expect the same treatment in respect of their loan securities as is provided in legislation applying to savings bank holdings.
The concession in regard to loan securities held by savings banks was granted because these institutions are instrumentalities of the various Governments, and have lent large sums to the Governments on concessional terms. On the other hand, the trading banks’ securities were subscribed for on the same terms as those held by the public, and there arc no grounds for granting the banks concessions in this direction which cannot be granted to other institutions or to the general public.
Some reference to the desire of the banks for this concession was made during the conference, but the request was not approved. No further representations in this direction were received by the Government from the banks until after the Debt Conversion Bill had been finally passed by both Houses of Parliament. As it is now impossible to alter the terms of the bill without the legislative authority of every Parliament in Australia, I regret it is too late to give further consideration to this request of the banks.
I note that the banks are prepared, in accordance with their ability to do so, to co-operate withthe Commonwealth Bank in financing the requirements of the Governments under the plan. The attitude adopted by the banks since the conference does not, however, satisfy roe that the banks are fully alive to the need for co-operation by them with the Commonwealth Bank in the provision of funds under the plan.
The refusal of the banks to assist in underwriting the proposed loan of £6,000,000 for public works is most disappointing to the Government, which is convinced that some relief must be quickly afforded to the large body of unemployed.
In conclusion, I desire to point out that it is essential that a closer understanding be reached between the banks and the Governments in order to ensure the full benefits of the plan of rehabilitation.
It is for this reason that, as advised yesterday, I have proposed to the Premiers that representatives of all the banks should be asked to meet the Commonwealth and State Ministers in conference in Melbourne about 10th August next.
It would, however, greatly assist if, in the meantime, the banks would make a public declaration not only of their support of the conversion loan, but of their intention to reduce rates of interest for advances to the extent of at least 1 per cent., as was contemplated at the conference. “ In so advising SirRobert Gibson, I asked him to be good enough to convey to the banks the views of the Government as expressed above. I should explain that these views were expressed primarily in reply to a letter forwarded by the chairman of the associated banks in Victoria to Sir Robert Gibson. The attitude of the New South “Wales banks appears to be somewhat different from that of the Victorian banks. This is particularly so in the case of the Bank of New SouthWales, the general manager of which has recently stated fully in the press the action taken by his bank both in regard to the reduction of interest rates on advances and the conversion of his bank’s loan securities.
The Bank of New South “Wales is converting the whole of its loan holdings “.
Within the last day or two. the Victorian banks had made a further announcement of’ the action that they propose in regard to interest rates. According to newspaper reports they are making a reduction of i per cent, as from the 1st July last, and a further £ per cent, as from the 1st January next. This will be the subject of discussion at the proposed conference.
I may add that the Queensland National Bank has advised the Government that it is converting all its loan holdings.
– I shall bring the request of the Leader of the Opposition under the notice of the right honorable the Prime Minister.
– If it is to be of any use, it should be made available to-day.
page 4790
– by leave - During the last six months statements have been persistently made in Parliament, and in other quarters, that a gold bullion loan of £15,000,000 was available to the Commonwealth Government in London. The Government has, in fact, been considerably criticized for what is said to be a refusal to accept this large sum on attractive terms, it being asserted that the loan could be quickly arranged through the agency of a small company, with headquarters in Sydney and a representative in London.
For some time, however, the Commonwealth Government has had reason to believe that loan moneys could not be obtained in London by any Australian Government on acceptable terms. Our securities have been selling in the London market at very low prices, the 5 per cent. Commonwealth 1945-75 bonds having at one stage been sold at just over £61, while the highest price for them in the last few months has been £78 10s. On these prices, the terms for new money, even if it had been available, would have been prohibitive. Moreover, we were unable to renew £5,000,000 of treasury-bills which matured in London in March last, and again in June it was found impracticable to renew £5,000,000 of Commonwealth treasury-bills falling due in London.
Despite these adverse conditions, it has been suggested that 4 per cent. Commonwealth bonds could be sold in London at a price near par in exchange for £15,000,000 of gold. We were, indeed, advised by the Sydney company that the agreement between the Government and the principals ought to be made without regard to current stock exchange quotations for existing securities. However, the London representative of the Sydney company at a later stage admitted that the price of issue of the securities must bear some relationship to the present low prices of Commonwealth securities.
It will be appreciated that a loan of £15,000,000 could not be placed in London except by a financial house of high standing and considerable strength. For this reason, it was apparent from the outset that the Sydney company could contemplate the issue of this loan only by placing the operation in the hands of a London issuing house of acknowledged strength. What the company really urged was that it had as principals an issuing house of high standing which was ready to undertake the loan.
In the ordinary course, the standing of this Sydney company and of its London representative would not have induced the Commonwealth to take any action, but the very definite statements made on the company’s behalf finally led the Government to test the possibilities of raising the £15,000,000 which was stated to be available. Accordingly, the financial adviser of the Commonwealth in London was authorized to get into touch with the London representative of the Sydney company.
As a result of the action taken, the Government found it was proposed to raise £15,000,000 in London through channels in Australia and London involving payment of commission to no less than five different parties, not including the proposed principals in the transaction, The proposal was that Commonwealth bonds should, through these parties, be taken up by a securities house in London. When the name of that house was communicated to the Government, it was ascertained that the securities house had no knowledge of the proposed transaction, nor did it know the representative of the Sydney company.
In view of these facts, the Commowealth Government decided that it could not proceed further in the matter.
page 4791
– I desire to make a personal explanation. My attention has been drawn to a paragraph appearing in this morning’s Canberra Times in connexion with a meeting of the United Australian party in the Senate held during the dinner adjournment last night. The paragraph is to the effect that some feeling was expressed by the Country party senators because an invitation was not extended to them to enable them to express their views. That statement is entirely inaccurate. An invitation was given to the members of the Country party, through me, to attend the meeting if they so desired. I regret that I did not convey its purport to my colleagues, and, consequently, if any blame is attachable to any one it should be placed upon me. At the same time, I wish to support the opinion expressed by the Country party representatives in this chamber last night with respect to the plan to the effect that any delay in putting it into operation should not receive the support of the members of the Country party. I was pleased to hear the assurance from honorable senators on both sides of the chamber that that was not the intention.
page 4791
– Can the Leader of the Government say if a decision has yet been reached in regard to the imposition of the additional excise duty of 5s. on whisky not bottled in bond?
– The matter is still under consideration.
page 4791
.- I move-
That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 3 p.m. on Monday next.
As there is still a good deal of work to be undertaken, honorable senators will realize the necessity for this motion. It is essential that the business now before Parliament should be disposed of as quickly as possible as responsible Ministers of the Crown have very important work to perform during the next few weeks. In these circumstances it is desirable that Parliament should adjourn for a few weeks as soon as possible. If this motion is agreed to the Senate should be able to dispose of the work likely to come before it possibly by Wednesday night.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.26].- The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes) has not given any valid reason why the Senate should meet on Monday next. The business before Parliament is the ordinary legislative work of the country. We are not approaching a general election or anything of that nature. There is, I understand, to be a meeting of the Loan Council next week, but such meetings have frequently been held while Parliament has been sitting. Even if the Prime Minister and Acting Treasurer should attend meetings in Melbourne, the Government’s majority in another place will not be endangered nor its minority in this chamber reduced. I should like to knowwhy the Senate is being asked to rush the business through in this way.
– It has been suggested that the Loan Council should meet in Canberra.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.It could ; but if more convenient it could meet either in Melbourne or Sydney. I do not see why honorable senators should be asked to meet on Monday. We are not approaching the end of the session, and there is do need to rush business through in the way proposed. There does not appear to be any reason why we should not proceed in the ordinary way.
– Honorable senators opposite should be prepared to do their job and allow us to get away.
– I do not know why the Government Whip should be so anxious in this matter.
– The Leader of the Opposition can return to his home in Melbourne once a week, but honorable senators representing distant States cannot do so.
– We are here to do the country’s business, and not to study our personal convenience. I trust that the Senate will not agree to the motion.
– I hope that the Senate will agree to meet on Monday. It is hardly necessary for me to intimate to the Leader of the Opposition that tho Government has very important work to perform in the immediate future.
– Al] of the members of the Cabinet do not have to attend the meeting of the Loan Council.
– Of course not. A meeting of that Council has been arranged for the 5th of August, which is to be followed almost immediately by a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. The Government has entered into an undertaking with the State Premiers to meet their convenience’ as far as possible, and for that purpose the meetings of the Loan Council and the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers are to be held in Melbourne. If the Senate meets on Monday no great hardship will be imposed upon honorable senators. If we return on Monday we can finish our business by Wednesday, and the House of Representatives can complete its work before the end of next week. The alternative is to bring members of another place back the following week. Is that reasonable? Honorable senators opposite claim to be desirous of assisting the Government in these trying times. They know the difficulties confronting the Government, and the burden which the Prime Minister has to bear. The conver sion loan is the greatest thing ever under taken by any Australian Government. Is it fair, in the circumstances, to keep the Prime Minister tied up?
– The Prime Minister was able to go to England while Parliament was sitting.
– That is no argument against the motion. We should do all we can to help the Prime Minister to do the best possible in the interests of the country. Personally, I am not concerned about going home; but I am concerned about the work before us. If necessary, I am prepared to sit to-morrow and Monday, but I do not desire to ask the Senate to do that. I am concerned, and every other honorable senator ought to be concerned, about the welfare of the man who has to carry the greatest share of the heavy burden resting on the country. It is not fair to place any obstacle in the way of the Prime Minister at this critical time.
– We should not interfere with him at all by not sitting on Monday.
– There is no danger of Parliament going into recess indefinitely. The Prime Minister has promised that he will meet Parliament within five weeks of the adjournment. It will take the whole of that time to do what is necessary in connexion with the rehabilitation plan. The Prime Minister is working day and night with the object of making a success of that plan, and we should do all we can to assist him.
– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) said that if I desired to place my personal interests before the interest of my country, I was welcome to do so. My attendance in this chamber compares favorably with that of any honorable senator. It is, I submit, evidence that I regard it as my duty to be here when the Senate is sitting. The Government has announced the programme it desires to see carried out before we adjourn. If we can get through that business by Wednesday, we ought to do so, and thereby enable honorable senators whose homes are far removed from Canberra to get home. We shall not do any more business by keeping members here over the following week. We shall lose nothing by meeting on Monday, and getting away by Wednesday. What have we done this week that honorable senators should not be prepared to sit again on Monday? On Tuesday of this week, the Senate sat for about three hours; on Wednesday, it adjourned before 11 p.m; notwithstanding that the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) wanted to go on until a later hour. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) made it clear that he and those associated with him were not prepared to do any more that night; the Opposition went on strike. It is all very well for Senator Pearce to take action which will prevent other honorable senators from getting to their homes. His home, for the present, is in Melbourne, and he can get to it each week end, as can also most honorable senators from New South Wales. Those in this chamber who come from the other States cannot get home so frequently. South Australian members must leave Canberra on Thursday to be home by Saturday. We shall not neglect our duty by meeting on Monday and finishing on Wednesday. Surely the Opposition is prepared to make some sacrifice in the interests of honorable senators from the more distant States! Senator Duncan, who seems strongly opposed to the motion, can get home every week end. Has he no consideration for others? Not only will honorable senators be inconvenienced if the motion is not agreed to; but members of another place will also be deprived of the opportunity of getting to their homes. I know that I shall be out of order, but it appears to me that the Opposition is prepared to hold up the whole business of the country, and to inconvenience members of this Parliament, merely to harass the Government.
– Order! The honorable senator says that he knows he will be out of order, and then he proceeds to say things which are out of order. By bo doing, he aggravates his offence.
– If the Opposition is not prepared to meet on Monday, perhaps its leader will go so far as to agree to the Senate meeting on Tuesday. If he is not prepared to do that, I appeal to honorable senators generally to have some consideration for others.
– In ordinary circumstances, I believe in allowing the Government to arrange the order of business, and, consequently, I am reluctant to vote against the motion. But in asking us to meet on Monday, the Government is acting inconsistently. For the last three weeks honorable senators have been required to be in attendance in this chamber on Tuesdays. Yet the Senate has adjourned on three successive Tuesdays before dinner, and the week before last on Wednesday also. Now, we are asked at very short notice to meet on Monday.
– When the Senate adjourned before dinner on the days mentioned, the honorable senator was pleased.
– I was not. I do not like being turned adrift in Canberra after a sitting of only three hours; I would rather be in my place here in the evenings. While I am not prepared to meet on Monday, I shall vote for the Senate to reassemble on Tuesday if the Leader of the Government will give an assurance that the Senate will sit after dinner.
– I hope that the motion will be carried. I am not greatly concerned about meeting the convenience of honorable senators from any State; but I am concerned about the efficiency of the Government, and about giving the Prime Minister, and those associated -with him the fullest opportunity to carry out satisfactorily the important work which they will be called upon to do in the near future. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently omitted to make any reference to the campaign on behalf of the conversion loan - the biggest thing of its kind ever undertaken in this country and, perhaps, in any country. Every week that that conversion is delayed costs the taxpayers of Australia £125,000. That fact alone should be sufficient to cause honorable senators to vote for the motion. It is not suggested in the motion that the business of the Senate shall be hastily considered.
I remind Senator Johnston that when the Senate adjourned at an early hour on several occasions recently, it was done to meet the convenience of honorable senators opposite. It is strange that the Government, having met honorable senators in that way, should now be charged with having wasted time. Throughout the session, the Leader of the Government has shown the Opposition every consideration, and I submit that he is entitled to similar treatment in return, not for his own sake, or for the sake of the Government, but in the interests of the country. Personally, I shall not mind if I remain here until Christmas, 1932, if there is business to be done; and, perhaps, I have remained in Canberra longer than have most honorable senators. Every day’s delay, every recrimination, every suspicion that is voiced, every shaft of distrust, renders less certain the success of the conversion loan. Surely honorable senators realize the task confronting the Prime Minister and those associated with him, and are prepared to meet a day earlier than usual if by so doing they will make that task easier and its success more certain.
– -Because the reason for the motion was so obvious I did not consider it necessary to enlighten the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) on the subject, but that was done by Senator O’Halloran, who has just resumed his seat.. Honorable senators must be aware of the need for our meeting on Monday, if the Government is to carry out its legislative programme within the time agreed upon.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill.)
AYES: 6
NOES: 18
Majority . . . . 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 4794
Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.
page 4794
Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had made the amendments requested by the Senate in this bill.
Bill read a third time.
page 4794
.- I move-
That the order of the day for the second reading of the Wheat Marketing Bill1 931, be restored to the notice-paper and made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.
I was absent from the chamber yesterday for some portion of the time during the debate on the amendment moved by Senator Greene requesting the Government to withdraw the bill temporarily in order to bring down legislation for the imposition of a sales tax on flour. Subsequent to the division, I gathered, from remarks made by a number of honorable senators, that there was a grave misunderstanding of the situation, and for that reason it is, I think, desirable that the bill should be restored to the noticepaper. I would point out that the Government has already considered the proposal for a tax on wheat and flour, and decided not to introduce legislation of that nature. The Government adheres to its decision, and is not prepared to give effect to the request made last night, because the proposal would not provide for the orderly and efficient marketing of Australian wheat.
The intention of the amendment, as I have stated, was that legislation should be introduced immediately imposing a sales tax on wheat and flour, the proceeds to be distributed to wheat-growers in the form of a bounty on production. That would involve two measures - (1) Imposing a sales tax on flour sold for consumption in each State; and (2) a bill providing for a bounty on wheat produced. The scheme is the one known as the Perkins plan, which suggests a sales tax of £7 4s. a ton on flour used in Australia, which would return sufficient revenue to give a bounty of 7£d. on all wheat of the. 1930-31 season available for sale. The Government considers that this tax on flour would increase the price of bread by about 2d. the 4-lb. loaf. Furthermore, it would not now be possible to obtain this result by a sales tax on flour so far as the 19.30-31 crop is concerned, for the following reasons: - (a) Over 75 per cent, of the wheat required for Australian use has already been converted into flour and sold to bakers, or has gone into consumption; (6) flour acquisition acts are in force in New South Wales and Queensland. In Queensland the act has the effect of returning the wheat-grower 4s. 2-£d. per bushel for first-grade wheat at the country stations. In New South Wales all flour is acquired by the New South Wales Government, and is sold to bakers at a price equivalent to 4s. per bushel. The difference between the price at which the flour is acquired and sold is retained by the Government for the purpose of assisting necessitous farmers.
The present price of flour for consumption in Australia is as follows: - Queensland, £12 10s. per ton at mill door; New South Wales,- £10 10s. per ton delivered; Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth, about £6 15s. per ton delivered. A sales tax of £7 4s. per ton would raise the price of flour in Queensland to £19 15s. per ton, in New South Wales £17 14s. per ton, and in the other mainland States £13 19s. per ton.
A sales tax of £7 4s. per ton on flour is equivalent to 3s. a bushel on wheat. The wheat equivalent of 1 ton of flour is 48 bushels. Investigations by royal commissions show that every increase over ls. per bushel in the price of wheat involves an increase of Id. in the price of the 4-lb. loaf. On this bask a sales tax of £7 4s. per ton on flour would represent an increase of not less than 2d. the 4-lb. loaf. This would increase the price of bread in Queensland from lOd. to over ls. ; in New South Wales from 1Od. to over ls. ; in Victoria from 9d. to over lid. ; in Western Australia to about lid., and in South Australia to about 10½d. All these disadvantages would be avoided by the acceptance of the Wheat Marketing Bill, because the States, which to-day have no local legislation securing additional prices to wheat-growers for wheat used for local consumption, could obtain this advantage by forming a federal pool. This applies particularly to Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia.
The adoption of the amendment was tantamount to a rejection of the Government’s proposals to assist our wheat, growers, the effect being the same as if honorable senators had voted against the second reading of the bill. Moreover, the amendment deprived a number of honorable senators of the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the bill, and, in order that they may give expression to their views on this important subject, a courtesy which I submit they are entitled to expect, I hope that honorable senators opposite will agree to the motion. If they do this they will not necessarily be expected to vote for the second reading of the bill.
Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [12 noon]. - If any honorable senator wishes to’ speak to the second reading of the Wheat Marketing Bill, I am prepared to allow the motion to pass without opposition. But I object to the Senate being blamed for the fact that honorable senators were prevented from speaking. It took no such action. I agree with the Minister that by carrying this motion to-day honorable senators will have a further opportunity to debate the bill, but I am amused at his argument that the Perkins plan would raise the price of bread, whereas the bill would not do so. I trust that the acceptance of this motion by the Senate will not lead him to think that’ honorable senators are so mathematically dense that they accept his calculations in that regard.
Senator GREENE (New South Wales ^ [12.1]. - If this motion is carried, and I do not intend to oppose it, I take it that the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill will proceed from the point it had previously reached. Lest that should be the case, I propose, since I have already spoken on the second reading, to make a few remarks on this motion. The reasons advanced by Senator Barnes for carrying the motion were of such an extraordinary nature that I could not possibly let them pass without some comment. I do not know whether the honorable senator regards us as children, or thinks that the people outside are so utterly lacking in brains that they cannot see through the thin camouflage with which the Government is trying to cover its actions. Yesterday quite innocently I was responsible for a denouement which I did not for one moment anticipate.
– The honorable senator is acquitted of any evil intent.
– That the Senate should have taken a vote immediately on the amendment I had the honour to propose, without any one rising to protest, was beyond my anticipation. It was competent for the Senate to continue the debate on the second reading after the amendment had been moved, but it decided otherwise, and took a vote immediately.
One reason advanced by the Government for the reconsideration of the bill is that the proposal I put forward would result in an increase of the price of bread. A fundamental objection to it was that it would raise the price of wheat. But the purpose of the bill, and the justification for it,’ is that under its provisions the price of wheat for local consumption may be raised.
– Without it actually saying so.
– That purpose is manifest, and with the thinnest of camouflages. Every one knows that the idea is to raise the local price of wheat.
Any one who has been speculating in primary products knows that losses are far more likely than gains. The speculator is always in a bad position. The fact that he is holding a big quantity of wheat tells against him. It is one of the great difficulties experienced by wheat pools, and the chances, are that the pool proposed will lose money. The odds against it making a profit are ab9ut ten to one. In addition to the possible loss will be the expenses of running it. , u nae a pool, therefore, unless the local price of wheat is made substantially more than it would be under the scheme which I propose, the chances are that the farmers will get a good deal less out of it than they would have . got by adopting the straight-out method that I have proposed. We are all actuated by a desire to assist the wheatfarmers, but the Government, not wanting to accept the odium of a direct tax on wheat, proposes a back-door method, under which the public would in all probability pay more than it would under a direct tax, and the farmers would get less. To say that the effect of my proposal, would be to raise the price of bread is an attempt to mislead the Senate and the public as to what the real effect of its own proposal would be. I do not wish to delay the Senate on this matter. I have registered my protest, and shall register it again at the proper time, because I do not believe the Government has adopted the right method of helping the farmers. Events will prove this, if the opportunity is afforded - I hope it will not - and in due course, the Government will have to face the position courageously, and do something which will be of some real assistance to the farmers, while not deceiving the public as it is now so much inclined to do.
– This is the first instance in the history of the Federal Parliament of a bill lapsing because of an amendment to a motion for its second reading. We are, therefore, without precedent on the point, hut the authorities I have consulted agree that in such circumstances it is better that the second reading motion should be submitted de novo, and I rule accordingly. The honorable senator will thus have further opportunity to express his opinions. If this motion is carried, the Leader of the Government’ in the Senate may submit a motion for the second reading of the bill.
– Yesterday the majority of the Senate expressed a definite opinion upon a certain issue, and it seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with all legal principles and com- mou sense if, after having in most definite terms passed a resolution on one day, it should the next day, and without rescinding that motion, take a complete volte face and enable a Minister to move to restore a bill to the business-paper. As you, Mr. President, have suggested, we are to-day creating a precedent, but I think it would be well if, drawing upon your long experience, you gave us your considered view upon the point as to whether the Standing Orders in relation to bills are to be considered as quite apart from standing orders relating to other matters. It seems to me that to-day we are acting contrary to our practice in every other respect. We carried an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Wheat Marketing Bill, yet a Minister, without moving to rescind that decision, is permitted to submit a motion almost in direct contravention to it.
– The amendment was merely a polite request.
– I intended it to be a very impolite request, in fact a demand. The point I wish to have cleared is, in what respect procedure in regard to a bill differs from our general procedure governing the consideration of all other matters. With my limited experience, I was foolish enough to think that the only course open to the Minister was to move under Standing Order 133 to rescind yesterday’s decision. Yet to-day, without giving adequate reasons for his action, a Minister is asking us to recant. I am not raising a point of order, but I ask you, Mr. President, to clarify our minds on this point.
– Before the President answers Senator McLachlan, I should like to point out that the amendment carried by the Senate was in the nature of a request to the House of Representatives to withdraw the bill temporarily, and re-introduce another bill on the lines set forth in the amendment moved by Senator Greene. It seems to me that a request having been made to the other chamber, we should have a reply to that request, either acceeding to or refusing to grant it,
– I suggest to honorable senators that it would be very much better if they would raise one point of order at a time. I shall deal first with the point raised by Senator McLachlan, as to the need for the rescission of yesterday’s decision of the Senate. As I have already said, there is no precedent in the history of the Federal Parliament to guide one in a case such as this. This is the first occasion on which it has been sought to restore a bill to the notice-paper subsequent to an amendment having been carried to the motion for its second reading. As the honorable senator has suggested, the second reading of bills stands in a class by itself, and in parliamentary practice the necessity for rescission expressed in Standing Order No. 133 has not been given- effect. The essence of tho motion for the second reading is contained in the word “ now ‘* which occurs therein, and that seems to form the basis of the consideration of this question. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, the Senate did not reject the motion for the second reading of this bill, but carried an amendment which, if put into effect, would result in another bill being introduced, possibly with the same title, but with somewhat different details. It is plainly enough laid down in May’s Parliamentary Practice that this can he done, it- being granted that it is not necessary for seven days to elapse before the bill can be further considered. May, at page 382, 13th edition, says -
It must bo borne in mind, however, that the resolution, if agreed to, does not arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion. The effect of such an amendment is merely to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time; and the bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived or superseded by the previous question. Tha House refuses, on that particular day, to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal : but the bill is not otherwise disposed of. Such being the technical effect of a resolution, so carried, it need scarcely be said that its moral and political results vary according’ to the character and importance of the resolution itself, the support it has received, and the means there , may be of meeting it, in the further progress of the bill.
On the point raised by Senator Rae, I find that, according to the procedure which has been adopted in this Parliament, when an amendment to a motion for the second reading of a bill has been carried, instead of a message to that effect being sent to another House, no further action has been taken. That has occurred on different occasions when such amendments have been parried in this chamber.
– I remind you, sir, that the Senate yesterday struck out, npt only the, word “ now but all the words after/ the word “That”. It was clearly and definitely indicated that the new bill should conform to the conditions laid down in the motion as amended. If, after that decision has been come to by the Senate, the bill can be restored to the notice.-paper, and an amendment of similar import can be made to it, those proceedings could be prolonged ad infinitum. If our Standing Orders are not competent to deal with, such a situation, it is high time that they were amended, so that this farcical procedure may be ended. Had the Government, in obedience to the decision of the Senate, withdrawn this bill and introduced another in conformity with that decision, all would have been well. It has not done so, but has preferred to move to restore the bill to the notice-paper in its original form, without making any apology for so doing. If that is allowable, we may find ourselves taking this action day after day, and the reputation of the Senate may suffer in consequence.
– The honorable senator has rather sought my advice than asked for a ruling. I point out that there are several ways qf escaping from the position to which he has alluded. In the first place, the Senate may refuse to pass this motion. In the second place, knowing that it may be introduced again and again, it surely would have discretion enough to adopt a method under which the bill could not survive; that is, by moving that it be read a second time this day six months. If the destruction of the bill is desired, that is the most effective procedure to adopt.
– In the event of a bill being rejected, I understand that under our Standing Orders it cannot be reintroduced during the same session. I should like to know whether that is so.
– It could not be re-introduced unless the Senate otherwise ordered. This is not a new procedure; although it has not previously been adopted in the Federal House, I have seen it adopted in other Parlia ments. As I have already said, the whole essence of the motion for the second reading is in the .word “ now.” The difficulty is overcome by striking put the word “ now “ and adding the words “ this day six months “. The reason for the substitution of those words is that it is assumed that Parliament will not he sitting on the day on which the bill will appear on the notice-paper.
– I wish to clarify my mind in regard to the position, and, If I am right, to make a suggestion for the consideration of the Leader of the Go*vernment (Senator Barnes), and the Leader qf the. Opposition (Senator Pearce). I understand that there may be a full debate on the motion for ‘ th& restoration of this hill to the notice-paper.
-Yes.
– Arguments in favour of that restoration are also arguments in favour of the second reading of the bill. Honorable senators who have not yet addressed themselves to the motion for the second reading of this bill would, on, this motion, have a full opportunity of stating the case as it appears to them in favour of or against the second reading of the bill.
– That- is so.
– There is, therefore^ no limitation of the rights of honorable senators, and no curtailment of the debate, Assuming that the motion .was carried, the bill would be restored to the noticepaper, and the order of the day would befor its second’ reading. We should thea have the whole debate over again. I suggest that the business of the Senate will be expedited, and the time of honorable senators will be saved if the vote on this motion is regarded as a test, vote on the second- reading of the bill. Those who were in favour of the restoration of the bill to the notice-paper would be in favour of its second reading, and vice versa.”
– Not necessarily. The Leader of the Opposition is opposed to the second reading of the bill.
– I know that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he does not propose to oppose this motion; but if he recorded his vote against the restoration of the hill to the notice-paper that would have the same effect as the recording of his vote against the second reading of the bill. Thus a repetition of the debate would be avoided.
– Pairs have been arranged on the second reading, but not on this.
– They would still operate on this, because it would be a test vote. Those in favour of the restoration of the bill to the notice-paper would support the second reading. In ordinary parliamentary procedure test votes are taken. Gould not some such procedure be adopted.
– Any arrangement of that nature is outside the province of the Chair.
– I desire to make a personal explanation. I said that I would not oppose the motion because I was under the impression that some honorable senators who wanted to speak on the bill had been prevented from doing so. I shall support the motion with the object of giving those honorable senators who desire to speak an opportunity to do so, but I am agreeable to a test vote being taken, as suggested by Senator Lawson.
.- I desire to take this opportunity briefly to express my views with regard to the wheat position, but more particularly with respect to the difficulties with which the wheat-growers of Australia are confronted. It is a long and sad story. We have to consider the position as it exists to-day. That is the real problem with which we have to grapple. The measures brought before this Parliament from time to time to relieve the wheat-farmers would, even if enacted, have been of little benefit to them. Even if this measure he passed it will afford little relief to those men who are so badly in need of immediate assistance. I realize that every honorable senator is anxious to assist the primary producers, and particularly the wheat-growers at the present juncture, because they recognize that the wheat-growers can do more to insure the solvency of the nation than those engaged in any other industry. Unless the farmers are protected and properly assisted the wheat-growing industry of Australia will be destroyed, and practically every one else in Australia will go down with it. During the debate on the various measures introduced into this chamber with the object of assisting the wheat-growers, numerous suggestions have been made. Particular stress has been laid upon the effect upon the price of bread of anything Parliament might do. Apparently the consumers, who seem to be more interested in the price of bread than the welfare of the wheat-growers, upon whom they largely depend for their livelihood, do not realize the importance of the wheat-growing industry of Australia. They should remember that if the wheat-growers collapse they must also go down with them. It is not a question of a slight increase in the price of bread to the consumers, but of whether the consumers might not eventually be without sufficient means to obtain any bread at all. The Melbourne Herald and the Sun Pictorial have endeavoured to awaken .the farmers of this country to the realities of the position, and also to bring home to the people generally the importance of the wheat-growing industry to Australia. Several able leading articles have appeared in those journals with the object of arousing the interest of primary producers, and the community generally. This morning’s newspapers report that a parcel of 1,469 tons of Victorian wheat was sold on the London market yesterday at 19s. a quarter, or 2s. 4½d. a bushel. That is equivalent to ls. 5d. a bushel f .o.b. .Melbourne, which is the lowest price on record for Victorian wheat. It will be no, time before the next harvest is upon us. Time passes rapidly and the heads of the corn will be ripening while the controversy continues. We should not tinker with this important problem ; we must look ahead. Eloquent speeches have been delivered in this chamber, particularly by the members of the legal fraternity, but mere eloquence or pledges will not relieve the farmers in their distress. Any sympathy we -may offer will not dispel the gloom in their minds as they leave their humble dwellings in the early morning to commence another day, which does not present any more attractions than the one which preceded it. Australian wheat-farmers are faced with the spectre of having to sell their wheat at ls. 4d. a bushel, which, is equivalent to ls. or ls. Id. at railway sidings. Irrespective of whether the financial plan recently discussed in this Parliament is adopted or not, and it will be of little benefit to wheat-growers, we have to ask ourselves in all seriousness if the wheat-growing industry is to be destroyed. If it should it would be many years before it could revive. During the war period the Australian nation was confronted with gigantic problems ; but those with which we are now faced are even greater. Early in the war, when wheat could not be sold at ls. a bushel, the Government realized that it was its responsibility to protect the wheat-growing industry. It declared a state of national emergency and its action materially assisted in protecting the wheat-growers. That is what should be done during the present crisis.
Reference has been made to Russia’s production of wheat. If we. do not handle this problem in a proper manner it will not be long before Australia will be hand in hand with those whose policy we so strongly condemn. The Russian harvest is about to be reaped. Russia has chartered 1,000,000 tons of shipping space as a first instalment, and, as the months go by, many million^ tons additional space will be secured. Russian wheat will be dumped in Great Britain just at a time when the farmers of this country are expecting some return for their labours, and when Great Britain will be knocking at our door for her share of our overseas interest commitments. In these circum- stances, I appeal to honorable senators not to worry too much about an unimportant wheat bill such as this. They should tell the wheat-farmers what the position actually is.
Sitting suspended from 12.1(5 to 2.15 p.m.
– There never was a more opportune time to urge the British Parliament and the people of Britain to purchase our primary products. Our voices should resound throughout Australia telling every wheat-grower in this country the true position of Australia, and what is taking place in the Old Country in connexion with the dumping of Russian wheat. “We should tell them that Russia has already chartered l,000j000 tons of shipping for the purpose of dumping wheat in Britain; that the United States of America has 200,000,000 bushels of wheat for disposal in the markets of the world, Great Britain in particular. We should remind them, if necessary, that only a few months remain to harvest time when they will be called upon to meet their liabilities by selling the grain that they will harvest, and that for the grain they will receive only about ls. a bushel.
– Wheat was ls. lid. a bushel in Adelaide last week - the lowest price in history.
– According to yesterday’s Melbourne Sun-Pictorial, the latest sales of wheat in. London brought 2s. 4½d. a bushel - equivalent to ls. 5Jd. a bushel f.o.b. Melbourne, or ls. lid. a bushel at country sidings. Wo should tell these things to the wheat-grower of this country, and let them know that the farmers of Britain realize the dangers confronting the wheat-growers of the Empire. The farmers of the Old Land have demanded that, the British Parlia- ment shall receive a deputation in their interests - a deputation backed by 100 members of the British Parliament. The fanners of Australia should be asked to send a message to their fellow wheatgrowers in Britain informing them that they are behind the British movement to insist on the British Government buying empire wheat; reminding them tha>t Australia was with them during the war period when thousands of our finest sons were sacrificed to protect British homes as well as Australian homes. Wo should appen.1 to them to assist, not themselves only, but also the yeomanry of this country, to continue to produce wheat to feed the British people, and not to permit them to be fed on bread made from Russian wheat, which is produced under conditions to which Australia can never succumb. I repeat that there never “was a more opportune time for our voices to be heard on behalf of our primary producers. I shall vote for the bill, because I will vote for anything that is legal which might give the farmers the slightest advantage in the price of their wheat. But I know how inadequate the bill will be to meet what is really a desperate situation. I liken it to a child playing in the woods, shouting aloud with glee while its parents lie murdered at home. In other circumstances, I would toss the biB aside, and appeal to the farmers of this great land to ‘rally their organizations, and, if necessary, send a delegation to Britain to represent their views to the British Parliament; to tell the people of England that Australia is anxious to meet its liabilities, but cannot do so if Britain buys Soviet wheat, while our wheat, which is almost our only asset, lies rotting in heaps. Conditions in the farming industry are such that I appeal r,o honorable senators not to be influenced too much by the possibility of the price of bread being raised by $d a loaf, but to look at this matter from a national stand-point.
I have nothing to say against the buyers of wheat. They have a perfect right to fight for their interests. It has been the practice of British peoples to allow every man to hold his own opinion. Personally, I would not give tuppence for a man who has no opinions, and no convictions. If the farmers of Australia awaken to the realities of the position, and fight for their legitimate interests, seeking the support of the people, I believe the country will not fail them. For the reasons which I have given, I shall support the motion, not because I think the bill will do much, but in the hope that it will give some slight relief to our farmers, who have never more urgently needed assistance.
– I shall be brief, because I want to meet the wishes of the Government to get through its business as quickly as possible. There is much that might be said, both for and against this bill, but I shall necessarily leave a great deal unsaid.
Senator Plain urged that we should appeal to the people of Britain to buy Australian wheat rather than that produced in Soviet Russia. I was in London about three years ago, when the late Government was in office there. In conversation with the Agent-General of one of the States - a man who belonged to a different political party from that with which I am associated - I was told that, in his opinion, all political parties in Australia, however divided they might be on some matters, should pray that the Conservative Government should remain in office in England, because it was the only government from which the dominions would get any assistance at all. Unfortunately, subsequent events have proved the truth of his remark.
It will be remembered that, when a previous bill for the establishment of a wheat pool was before the Senate, I gave the Minister in charge of it an assurance that, if he would withdraw the objectionable clause which saddled the States with one-half of the responsibility for any loss that might accrue from the operation of the pool, I would support the bill. That assurance was not given, notwithstanding repeated statements to the contrary. I admit that there were certain whispers in the lobbies, but on them I placed no value. I take no notice of what goes on in the lobbies. Had a responsible Minister, from his place in the Senate, given me the assurance I asked for, I. would have accepted it, irrespective of the party in power at the moment. But I was given no such assurance. Honorable senators know the fate of that bill. That objectionable clause is not in the measure before us. While I am under no misapprehension as to the value of this bill, I intend to vote for it, in order to allow the farmers of Australia to judge of its value for themselves. That it will prove to be merely a mirage I have no doubt whatever. But that is not my business. In my opinion, the farmers of Australia would receive far more assistance from a measure along the lines of a proposal which was before us yesterday than they will get from this bill. I cannot help recalling a statement made by the Assistant Minister some time ago - that, on the passing of this measure, the Wheat Advances Act of 1930 would be repealed. I do not charge the Government with insincerity; but, had it been willing to adopt the best means of assisting the farmers of Australia, it would have introduced a bill to amend the Wheat Advances Act 1930, so as to make it applicable to the harvest of 1931-32 instead of to that of 1930-31. Only a short bill would have been necessary to do .that. The Assistant Minister told us that the Commonwealth Bank had received advice that that act was not constitutional, and that, therefore, it might not be able to recover from the Government any money lost under the scheme. That was not a valid reason for the Government’s refusal to proceed further with the scheme. Its proper course was to indemnify the bank against any probable loss that might hare been incurred in operating it. Instead of doing that, the Government dropped the proposal and gave the people to understand that it was unable to assist the farmers because the Commonwealth Bank had declined to finance it.
Turning now to the bill itself, even if it is placed upon the statute-book a number of hurdles will have to be negotiated before it can become operative. In the first place, before a ballot of farmers of a wheat-growing State can be taken, it will be necessary for the State Parliaments to pass the necessary legislation. The second hurdle will be the farmers’ ballot. On this point, I am reminded of the apt criticism of Senator Lynch yesterday, who told us that our wheat-farmers had asked for a bounty, and had been given a ballot. Well, this bill provides for that ballot. Then if the farmers decide to support a pooling arrangement, the State Parliaments must pass legislation under which State wheat boards will be authorized to fix a local consumption price. That is the third hurdle. Altogether the scheme is so complicated that its value to the wheatgrowers of Australia is extremely problematical, but having regard to the fact that the State Governments will not be required to shoulder any financial responsibility, I have no special duty to my State to object to it, so I intend to give the wheat-growers the opportunity to decide for themselves.
This wheat marketing scheme is the last of a long series of efforts on the part of this Government to do something for the wheat-growers of Australia. The statement has been made repeatedly by occupants of the treasury bench and their supportrers in this chamber, and also in another ‘place, that this Government has been unable to give effect to its policy for the assistance of our wheat-farmers, beacuse of a hostile Senate. The facts do not support that statement. The Senate defeated only one proposal brought forward by the Government, namely, the bill for the establishment of a compulsory wheat pool, a little over a year ago, and the rejection of that measure was due entirely to the action of the Minister in charge of it. Despite earnest appeals to defer the vote on the second reading for a day or two, he forced the bill to a division with the result that it was defeated.
– He did not wish to see it carried.
– I cannot help thinking that there is some truth in the interjection made by the honorable senator, but I shall say no more upon that point just now. My intention is to vote for the bill so as to allow farmers in ali the wheat-growing States to decide far themselves. But I should like to emphasize the need for the insertion of safeguards to provide that the decision shall rest with primary producers in wheatexporting States only. Farmers d States which are not interested in the export trade should not be asked to participate in a ballot upon this important preposal. It would be manifestly unfair if they were included in the scheme, and had the opportunity to impose their will upon farmers in the wheat-exporting States. On general principles, I am opposed to compulsion. Under this bill, if three of the States decide in favour of a pool, the farmers will be committed to that arrangement for a period of three years. Although the benefits of such a proposal are highly problematical, and the disadvantages are real and immediate, I intend to allow the wheat-growers the opportunity to say whether or not they are prepared to accept it.
– As honorable senators are aware I am entirely opposed to the principle at compulsion in any form. I consider the bill to be very faulty in many respects. In the first place, I object to the farmers in those States which are not interested in the export trade having the opportunity to participate in the ballot. States like Tasmania and Queensland,^ for example under this proposal will have equal power in a ballot with the great wheatgrowing States of New South Wales and Victoria. The principle is entirely wrong. I am sorry also that the bill does not provide that there must be a majority of all States in favour of the scheme before the proposed pool can be established. Then again, Victoria which is an important wheat-importing State will be heavily penalized under the equalization scheme. to the benefit of Western Australia, because Victorian wheat-growers will pay into the equalization fund much more, than, they will get out of it.
Noone will deny that our wheatgrowers are deserving of every assistance which this Parliament can give them, and no valid reason has yet been advanced for the rejection of the so-called Perkins plan for the imposition of a sales tax on wheat and flour for home consumption. But, as the Government is definitely opposed to that scheme, I am determined, notwithstanding my strong personal convictions about the evils of compulsion, and notwithstanding also all the faults which I have discovered in this bill, to support it and thus allow our wheatgrowers themselves to express their own view on the general proposal.
– I remind the honorable gentleman that he is speaking to a motion for the restoration of the Wheat Marketing Bill to the Senate noticepaper; but he may, in support of the motion, give reasons why he intends to support the bill itself.
– I intend to support the second reading of the bill, so that our wheat-growers may have the right to make their own decision by means of the proposed ballot. Some honorable senators have complained that, if the bill is passed in its present form, the Government nominee will be -the chairman of the proposed board. That is not so. The growers will have a predominating representation, and will elect their own chairman. The troubles of our farmers have, within the last few months, been greatly added to by the unprecedented floods in the Riverina and also in the northern wheatgrowing areas of Victoria. For many years prices have been very much below the cost of production. All the authorities which I have been able to consult are agreed that the cost of production varies from 4s. to 5s. a bushel, according to locality and yield. To-day, the price is about 1s. 6d. a bushel at railway stations. I believe it is possible to obtain1s. 9d. in certain localities, hut I have known of actual sales this year of prime milling wheat, delivered in bags at railway stations, for1s. 3d. a bushel. As the cost of the bag is estimated at 4d. per bushel, and cartage 2d. per bushel, all that is left for the farmer is 9d. a bushel, for a product that cost him at least 4s. a bushel to grow.
Production costs in Australia are high mainly because of our high tariffs, embargoes, and awards of industrial tribunals. Everything which the farmer has to use - his galvanized iron, fencing wire, and other farm commodities - is abnormally high in price, and, in addition, because of Arbitration Court awards, rail charges on his produce and all that he requires are greater than they ought to be. But his troubles do not end there. Because of the decline in imports, due to the tariff policy of this Government, vesselscome out to Australia partially empty, and, as a consequence, their owners have to charge higher rates of freight on the outward cargoes. Under the ordinary system of marketing, the farmers’ wheat becomes available in December and January of each year, and as the grower is usually in urgent need of money to meet obligations with his banker and storekeeper, he is forced to accept the best price offering. I do not suggest that the buying agents at the railway station put their heads together to keep prices down, because I know these buying agents do splendid work for our farmers. If there is a pool, the grower will do as he has done in New South Wales this year, namely, put his wheat into the pool and get an advance against it. This would enable him to carry on, at all events for a little while, and, if the market improved, he would get an advantage out of the arrangement. Coordination and central control of collective marketing have proved most successful. On this subject I quote the following from Mr. H. M. Lloyd’s Economic and Social History ofthe World:-
It there is one thing more than another which distinguishes the economic conditions of agriculture from those of other industries - apart altogether from monetary considera tions - it is the instability of its prices, the exceptional degree to which they are liable to fluctuate from season to season, and their exceptional sensitiveness to supply and demand. So much is this the case, that the farmer is left in a perpetual dilemma.
In their interim report on cereals, flour and bread, the Linlithgow committee called attention to the seasonal fall in wheat prices occurring at each harvest. The report states -
We have been impressed by the losses which farmers frequently sustain by selling their grain immediately after harvest in order to raise cash for various essential transactions, such as the purchase of stock for winter feeding. This causes a glut on themarket in the autumn, and farmers who press the sale of their produce at that time have, as a result, to take what has been described as a “ terrible discount “.
That is just the point I have been emphasizing.
Many honorable senators have said that pools have been harmful in their effect. I do not agree with them. I do not admit that the Canadian wheat pools have been a failure. For the last year or two they have enabled Australian wheat-growers to get higher prices for their wheat; indeed, they have helped wheat-growers throughout the world. The collapse would have come much earlier than it did but for the Canadian pools. According to some honorable senators the big Canadian carry-over has further depressed the price of wheat, but they fail to realize that there has been a collapse in all world commodity prices. There has been just as great a fall in the price of wool, cotton and metals as there has been in the price of wheat. Honorable senators also forget the enormous world wheat crop of two years ago. But the great factor in the collapse in the price of wheat has been the dumping of Russian wheat. Prior to the war, Russia was the biggest wheat exporting country in the world, and now, under its five-year plan, and because it is producing more or less by means of forced labour on very cheap land, it again has an enormous quantity of wheat to export, and is dumping it at any old price on the markets of the world, thereby completely knocking the bottom out of the wheat market. If it cannot conquer by arms, Russia wants to conquer the world economically. Senator Plain has spoken of the cruelty of the Labour Government in Great Britain in allowing a country which has repudiated debts amounting to £900,000,000 to dump its wheat in Great Britain to the detriment of the sons of Britain who have served the Empire well, and are struggling under great adversity.
The Right Honorable Lord Melchett’s interpretation is for all practical purposes the governing fundamental principle of the famous I.C.I., a merger of world-wide importance operating in chemicals, fertilizers, explosives, dyes, certain metals, synthetic products, &e. Numerous examples could be given such as -
The Bleachers Combine.
The Calico Printing Combine.
The Dyers Combine.
The Thread Combines and other Textile Trusts.
The Soap and Glycerine Combine.
The Salt Association.
The Explosives Combine.
Alcohol and Yeast Trusts.
The Cement Combine.
Steel Organizations.
Tobacco Trusts.
Oil Corporations.
Match industries.
Electrical manufacturers and many others.
Look at the tremendous success of coordination in the tobacco industry, and the success of oil operations. I do not believe in these, combines, but their success is conclusive evidence of the need for co-ordination in marketing. This bill proposes to give the farmers of Australia the right to control their own product, and fix a reasonable price for wheat consumed in Australia, and to market any surplus abroad in an orderly fashion. I cannot see any objection to that.
– Is the wheat now marketed in a disorderly fashion?
– I am not saying anything about that, but if the farmers want to market it in another way why cannot they be allowed to do so?
– If some of the farmers want a change the honorable senator says that the others must agree to- it.
– Surely the honorable senator believes in majority rule.
WhenSenator Barnes was introducing the bill he rather inferred that if the Government was successful in passing this measure if would introduce something to interfere with the control of the marketing of wool. I should be totally opposed to that because the methods of marketing of the two commodities, wheat and wool, are quite distinct.
– I referred to wool marketing merely by way of illustration. The Government has not, so far as I am aware, any intention of interfering with wool.
– I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to wheat.
– I thought that the matter was relevant towheat, because if the Government proposes to interfere with wool it will influence my vote upon this bill.
– It has nothing to do with it. In any case, the honorable senator is only speaking to the bill at this stage by courtesy.
– I understood that we were to be allowed to make our second-reading speeches at this stage. When the Minister was introducing the bill, he said that, taking 6d. as the price of a 4-lb. loaf, a rise of1s. per bushel for wheat would in- crease the price of bread by1d. for the 4-lb. loaf; or id. per.lb. I do not agree that9d. is the average price of the 4-lb. 4-lb. In some of the suburbs of Melbourne a 4-lb. loaf is being sold for less than 4d., and in Sydney, a contract has been let at 3¾d. for the 4-lb. loaf. A large institution in Melbourne has let a contract at 4¾d. for the 4-lb. loaf. But in most parts of Victoria the price is from 7d. to 8d. Some bakers are still profiteering by charging their customers 10d. or11d. The leakage between the cost of wheat and the price of bread is mostly due to faulty methods of distribution, and possibly to the high wages paid in the baking industry. The Minister’s estimate was made on wheat at 3s. 6d. a bushel. The price to-day is about 2s.
– Where ?
– The price I received two -weeks ago in Sydney was 2s. 2d.
– That was an f.o.b. price, of course.
– Yes. Wheat can be bought in Sydney or Melbourne to-day at 2s. Senator Plain has shown that1s. 6d. is the equivalent of the Liverpool price to-day It takes 48 bushels of wheat to produce 2,000 lb. of white flour and 880 lb. of bran and pollard ; or 2,880 lb. of wholemeal. A ton of flour costs £7 4s. with wheat at 3s. a bushel, and we know that 2,000 lb. of flour will make 2,600 lb. of broad, which at1d. a lb. would give the baker a return of £1016s. 8d. At 2d. a lb. or 8d. for a 4-lb. loaf the baker’s return for £7 4s. worth of flour is £21 13s. 4d. A baker can produce 3,744 lb. of wholemeal bread from 2,880 lb. of wholemeal, which gives a return of £15 12s. to the ton of flour at1d. a lb., and £31 4s. at 2d. per lb. When wheat is at 2s. a bushel, its present price, the cost of the baker’s flour is only £4 16s. a ton, and I have shown that 2,600 lb. of bread at1d. per lb. gives him a return of £1016s. 8d. a ton. There is, therefore, a tremendous margin between the cost of the flour and the price of the bread, yet” the whole process is simple enough, and also speedy. It seems to be worse than the anomaly that exists between the cost of wool and the cost of a suit of clothes. With wool at its present price, there is only 4s. 8d. worth of wool in a suit costing from £6 to £12. If the price of wool were doubled it would only add 4s. 8d. to the cost of a suit of clothes. In the same way if the price of wheat were doubled it should not add materially to the price of bread.
Senator Lynch and Senator McLachlan have roundly condemned all pooling systems. I have already referred to the Canadian pool and to the cause of the drop in commodity prices throughout the world. I have condemned the British Government for allowing Russia to dump its wheat in Great Britain. Because of our high tariff wall, many European countries have retaliated upon Australia by imposing restrictive customs duties on our wheat, meat and butter. They are also growing more wheat themselves. The result is that they are not importing so much wheat as they formerly did; which is another contributing factor to the poor demand that is in the world to-day for our wheat, and to the unremunerative price obtainable. I should like those gentlemen who are condemning wheat pools to bear in mind the wonderful success of Bawra, which handled the Australian wool clip. The marketing of our wool was carried out by a central wool committee under an agreement with Great Britain, covering a term of four years, and it was considered by economists throughout the world to have been of outstanding merit. It handled 7,000,000 bales of greasy wool bought by the Imperial Government. The agreement was that all wool not required for naval and military purposes was to be sold by a central committee, with an ultimate division of the profits. At the end of the war there was an accumulation of something like 900,000 bales of wool. At the time a great many bankers, brokers and economists said, “ This supply of wool is in the way of the incoming clip and is valueless. Dump it into the sea.” But by orderly marketing that enormous quantity was realized upon at an average price of 22£d. per lb., compared with 10.36d. per lb., last year’s price for wool on the open market, and from 7d. to 7£d. per lb., which is to-day’s price for Australian wool. Conclusive proof of the success of organization and of the pooling of wool under Bawra is furnished, by .the average prices of Australian greasy wool over a cycle of years. In the cycle 1896- 1906 the average price was 8½d. a lb. In the next cycle, from 1906 to 1915-16, it was 9.1d. per lb. In the four years from 1916-17 to 1919-20 it averaged 22£d. per lb. For the cycle 1920-30 it dropped to 17. Id. per lb. Over the whole period of 30 years, the average was 12£<I. per lb. In 1929-30 it.was 10£d.; last year it was 8.36d., and to-day’s value is from 7d. to 7id., or, without exchange, only 5d. Every one knows that it costs ls. or more per lb. to produce..
For the reason that there have been many successful pools, and that it is absolutely essential to assist the wheatgrowers of this country, I support the bill, despite its many faults. There are a number of ways in which I should like to see it amended; but the Government is adamant in its opposition to a sales tax on flour and insists upon this method being adopted.
– I believe that we have listened to a greater number of speeches on this than on any other subject during the present session. I cannot recall more than two days on which one or another honorable senator has not referred to it.
I have no enthusiasm for the bill that has been presented to the Senate, but it is my intention to vote for its restoration to the notice-paper. The speeches that have been made in connexion with the wheat industry have brought home to me the realization that the wheatgrower has been tossed from side to side of Parliament and treated by members as a toy balloon is handled at a children’s party; disaster inevitably overtakes the balloon, and that is the position in which the wheat-grower finds himself to-day.
I fail to see, as has been suggested by some honorable senators, that the passing of this measure would necessarily involve the establishment of pools. It merely provides the wheat-growers of Australia with an opportunity of saying whether or not they will attempt to manage their own affairs. It certainly does not mean government-controlled pools. But it does provide an opportunity for a reduction of overhead charges. Instead of there being three, four or five agents at each country centre, there would be only one. In addition, there would be a single negotiating authority for freight and insurance. In that direction, considerable reductions can be made in overhead charges. A further effect would be the decreasing of competition in connexion with sales; instead of there being three sellers to one buyer, there would be only one seller, who thereby would reap an advantage.
I remind honorable senators, particularly those who , sit on the Government side, that as far back in civilization as our knowledge extends, the cultivation of the soil has been the principal industry in any thriving community. It has been made clear to us by every process of logic, as well as by historical fact, that the wealth of a nation, the character of its people, the quality and the permanence of its institutions, depend upon a sound and sufficient agricultural foundation. That fact, I think, has been entirely overlooked by the Government. It should have realized that all honorable senators are anxious to help the wheat-farmer. If it will bring down something practicable, our almost unanimous support will beassured.
I support this measure, not with enthusiasm, but merely because it will enable the wheat-growers to express his’ views either for or against his own management of his own affairs.
.- I say emphatically that I do not intend to support the motion for the restoration of this bill to the notice-paper. I take this attitude because I do not believe that a compulsory pool would be to the lasting benefit of the wheat-farmers of Australia. I realize as keenly as any other man the necessities of the wheat-farmer to-day; but I have listened very carefully to those who are in a position to speak authoritatively on the proposal, and have been deeply impressed with the case that has been made out by Senator Lynch against the provisions of the bill as originally introduced. In my opinion, a compulsory pool would not gain the end sought to be attained. According to my understanding of the measure, it would mean the leg-roping and chaining of the wheat-farmers of Australia to a system from which they might find it very difficult to escape should theyever desire to do so. It must not be forgotten that no request for a compulsory pool has been made on behalf of the bulk of the wheat-farmers. The evidence is rather in the other direction. Had there been a request for a compulsory pool from a large proportion of those who are engaged in wheat-growing, one might justifiably give consideration to such a proposal. I am always opposed to anything that may add to the already numerous governmental agencies in Australia. Reference has been made by a previous speaker to the wonderful success of tobacco trusts and other similar organizations; but I remind the Senate that those trusts or organizations are controlled directly by the persons who are engaged in the industry. They are private institutions, and are entirely free from government control. That is the reason that they have been so successful. We have been told that the life-blood of the wheat-farmer is the spirit of competition which so far has characterized the disposal of our yearly wheat harvests, and Senator Lynch rightly directed attention to the handicap that would be placed on the farmers with whom he is associated if that competition were withdrawn. He is quite satisfied that the farmer has always had a fair deal. That has been assured in Western Australia by the existence of a- voluntary pool, and the operations of wheat boards.
I understand the Minister to desire the restoration of the bill to the notice-paper in order that the policy of the Government may be endorsed by the Senate. I, for one, shall not endorse it. The honorable gentleman is not prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the amendment to which the Senate agreed yesterday. On the Government’s head be the responsibility for that. I am opposing the restoration of the bill in the form in which it was before the Senate yesterday. My action is not dictated by parochial considerations. The State of Tasmania has been mentioned, and it is only right that I should refer to it. Tasmania is not a wheat-producing State to any appreciable extent, but it does grow some wheat, and under the proposal contained in the bill, its wheatgrowers unquestionably would benefit to the extent of approximately £20,000. But in order that they might do so, the people of Tasmania would have to bear an additional burden of over £100,000. The wheat that is grown in Tasmania is purchased by the local millers. It is only fair to them to say that this year they are paying the growers a minimum of 3s. a bushel for all the wheat that they purchase. The flour that is made from that wheat is exported to the mainland, and made into biscuits. The advantages that would accrue to the other States would not be shared by Tasmania.
– An amendment has been agreed to by the Government to remove the difficulty to which the honorable senator has referred, and’ is to be incorporated in the bill in this chamber.
– I know of no probable amendment that would overcome the difficulty.
– If the honorable senator will allow the bill to go into committee, he will see what it is.
– We have no amendment before us at the present time. I” oppose the motion.
– The Government would have this Senate, the wheat-growers, and the country generally, believe that it is out to help the wheat-growers. I remind it that at least three separate and distinct obstacles have, to be overcome before this oan be done. In the first place, a ballot must prove favorable in at least three States. Secondly, if it is to be of any use at all, ‘that ballot must be obtained in the three States that have the largest population, and, naturally, the greatest consumption. Thirdly, there has to be implanted in this measure a clear and distinct equalization scheme that will give to the wheat-growers the benefit of the difference between the enhanced price for home consumption and the average price of the exported portion. Such a provision is not in the bill, and without it, as sound legal authorities agree, it is useless in this respect alone. If the Government wishes to help the farmer directly, without running the risk of encountering those almost insuperable obstacles, why has it not already done so? 1 have pointed out on many occasions i hat it has had the chance to do so at its G Tiger tips. Senator McLachlan has shown that the money has been there for the asking; but the Government would not ask for it. There would have been no need for this bill had the Government adopted a direct, an honest, and a business-like method of achieving the end which it professes to desire. I should like to correct the impression conveyed by Senator Guthrie, who referred to the possible injury that would accrue to the large consuming States. Of course, such States will be at a disadvantage under this measure. If they would not be at a disadvantage, the bill would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. Senator Guthrie and the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), who is chairman of the Victorian Wheat Pool, raised a point which the Government should keep in its mind. Mr. Hill would not agree to the benefit from any increase in prices under the pooling system being distributed on an average basis, but suggested that only 50 per cent, of the excess price obtained in Victoria and New South Wales should be distributed over the whole marketable portion. These things should be kept in mind. That is one of the insuperable obstacles to bc overcome. The bil] ensures that each big consuming State shall be the gainer of its excess. In this respect it is not a pool at all, it is a pure farce. Another bad point about the bill is that it makes no provision for a State whose landing charges are lower than those in the other States. If the bill lives this manifest injustice will have to be put right. All this must be overcome before the Government can contend that it is doing anything in the interests of the wheat-farmers of thi* country. How can the wheat-growers feel that they are likely to derive any advantage from the pooling system in face of these three obstacles, which I suggest are insurmountable. By way of interjection, Senator O’Halloran said that the Government proposed to amend the measure in order toremove some of the anomalies which the equalization scheme contains. That amendment, however, is not before the Senate. The vote on this motion is to be indicative of honorable senators’ opinions of the principle of the bill.
Under this proposal, benefit is to be afforded for three years, while in Western Australia we are supporting protected industries in this country to the extent of £1,000,000 annually. When world prices for wheat revived the wheat-farmers would naturally expect the Government to withdraw any support they were receiving. They are always willing to stand on their own base when that is possible. I remind Senator Guthrie, who said that the Western Australian wheat-growers would obtain some benefit under this proposal at the expense of the more populous States, that it is time that State received some advantage in view of the difficulties with which it has been labouring under the federal system, particularly in consequence of the heavy customs duties imposed. These, although of benefit to certain secondary industries in the eastern States, are absolutely crippling Western Australia.
An extraordinary admission from the Minister (Senator Barnes) proves our case. He said that every increase of ls. per bushel in the price of wheat would mean an increase of Id. in the price of a 4l-lb. loaf of bread. That is what we have been contending for all along. The price of any raw material cannot be increased without increasing the price of the finished product. That is as natural as night following day.
Why does not the Government keep its word? Why has effect not been given to the measure which has already been enacted? If the Government received a communication from the British authorities to the effect that we were not to benefit under the Hoover plan to the extent of £2,500,000 as we have been informed, would it not say that that that government was dishonouring its promise? Yet that is exactly what the Government has done to the farmers. If the Hoover plan materializes, it will be the means of reducing our deficit. If President Hoover went back on his word as this Government has done in connexion with the wheat-growers, the Government would immediately say that a definite promise had been broken. The wheat-farmers of Australia were led to believe that they would receive direct benefit from an act of Parliament deliberately passed, but up to the present that assistance has not been forthcoming.
There is a possibility, I hope it is a remote one, of the present Premier of New South “Wales, Mr. Lang, reaching a responsible position in Commonwealth affairs. Eighteen months ago a large section of the people of New South “Wales little dreamt that Mr. Lang would exercise his authority in the way he has. If that gentleman should reach a position of authority in the federal sphere, and have within his grasp, in a Commonwealth pool, £16,000,000 worth of wheat, what would he and the Federal Government, which he might be leading, do with it? He would use it in whatever way he pleased, just as he has used and abused other trusts reposed in him. If the Australian wheat crop were placed under the control of an Australian Wheat Board, the chairman of which might be a government nominee, a sum of £16,000,000 would be a “tempting morsel “ for a hard-up Labour Treasurer to pawn or pledge for his political benefit. There is a possibility, even a probability, of that happening. I, therefore, warn the farmers of Australia not to place their product in the hands of a board which may be under political control, or at least where the proceeds of their wheat may be at the disposal of the leader of a revolutionary government. Let them keep a firm grip of their property. We have read recently that the Qovernment of which Mr. Lang is now toe leader has reduced the salaries of
Supreme Court judges in the State of New South Wales ‘ to £500 a year, although last year those judges paid £400 a year in income tax. A man who acts in that way should not have the proceeds of the farmers’ wheat where he can get his hands upon it.
– The motion we are debating is to restore to the notice-paper the Wheat Marketing Bill and, I understand that the arrangement which you, Mr. President, have allowed is that on this motion we shall be permitted to discuss the merits or demerits of that measure. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak upon this subject) because I realize that by a simple vote, one might very easily be misunderstood. I cannot allow my vote to be determined by any calculation of how exactly this scheme is to work out in pounds, shillings and pence. If I looked “at the equalization clause alone, I might be inclined to vote against the bill upon the ground that it would be more to the detriment than to the advantage of the State of which I am a representative. If, on the other hand, I allowed my vote to be dictated by sympathy to the farmers, I might -support the bill, particularly if I thought it would be of some pecuniary advantage to them. As to my sympathy with the farmers, I think that even during my short tenure of this chamber, I have let that be known. I am one of those who recognize beyond question that the prosperity of this country must depend upon the prosperity of the primary industries. I believe it to be the case that the general trend of political action in the Commonwealth, whatever may have been the intention, has been to place undue burdens upon the man on the land. We live, as Senator Lynch said yesterday, in a topsy turvy world, and in this topsy turvy world I recognize that the position of the farmer is that, if he were given good wheat-growing land free of charge, and asked to cultivate wheat in it, he could not make a living. If he were given 500 acres to cultivate, the more of these acres he cultivated, the less prosperous he would be. He would be wiser to cultivate one acre than 500. He would be wiser still if, instead of cultivating any wheat at all, he put whatever money he had into speculative wheat buying, because then he would know what would be the extent of his losses and would gamble on the prospect that the wheat market might rise.
When we recall that upon the wheatgrowers depends our very existence, it must be seen that these conditions have been brought about or, at any rate, accentuated, by the line of policy which we have pursued, and that line of policy, I venture to say, is that we have increased the price of everything which the farmer has to use in the production of his wheat, while we have not been able, and will not be able, despite any panacea which this or any other government may use, to increase the price of that which the wheat-grower produces.
My opposition to the bill arises from the knowledge that the Government has not any money to bestow; that it has not the magic power of striking the rock and causing the waters of wealth to issue forth; that it cannot rain down manna from heaven by any act of Parliament, whether expressed in the King’s English, or any other English. The most that it can do is to divert the stream of wealth that has been created by other people. We should never forget this elementary fact, that whatever money the Government puts, either directly or indirectly, into the pockets of one class of the people, it takes, either directly or indirectly, out of the pockets of another class. The Government does not create that wealth at all.
My opposition to the bill does not rest upon any question of advantage or disadvantage to a particular section; it is based upon what I am pleased to call broader and deeper principles. When we are considering the question of bartering away the liberties of the people of this country, I decline to consider it in terms of either pence or bushels. I base my opposition to this bill on a belief that it is an immense advance in the direction of sovietism and socialism. If we want any evidence of that, it is to be found in the second-reading speech of the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes), when he expressed astonishment, not only that we should hesitate to go as far as this bill would have us go, but that we should hesitate to go much farther in the marketing of our primary products. I do not wonder at that, because the Minister represents, in this chamber, a party which stands, according to its printed platform, for the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
– All co-operative effort is not necessarily socialism.
– It is only a step towards socialism. “ One step enough for me “ is the policy of this Government. It does not desire to disclose its hand too nakedly, but is content to gain its objective by a process of peaceful penetration. If we wanted further evidence of this advance towards the socialism and sovietism which this bill enacts, we have only to recall what took place in another chamber. The supporters of the party of which the Leader of the Government in this chamber is such a distinguished member are divided into certain classes; there are the pale pinks, the .blush pinks, the deep pinks, the reds, and the scarlets. It was very noticeable that the scarlets, at any rate, were all in support of this bill.
– They are against the Government.
– They are against the Government only because the Government does not go as far as they desire it to go. So long as the Government goes with them to the extent of their wishes, they will be with the Government heart and soul. Those representatives of the party in another place supported this bill, expressly and avowedly, because it was an advance towards sovietism and socialism.
– Capitalism has made a mess of things up to now, and something must be done.
– I have already expressed my views on capitalism, and I shall not be drawn from the ordered course of the argument that I desire to place- before the Senate, except to say that what the honorable senator, calls capitalism - the system of individualism under which we live, and have lived - has broken down, not because it is individualism, but because it is overloaded with socialism.
The second ground upon which I object to this bill is that it attacks property rights. We have only to look at subclause 3 of clause 16 to see that. That sub-clause reads -
Except as provided bythe regulation -
the owner or person having possession or custody of wheat shall not deliver any wheat to any person tor carriage into or through another State to a place in Australia beyond the State into which the delivery is made ; and
a person shall not carry any wheat from a place in one State into or through another State to a place in Australia beyond the State in which the carriage begins. . . .
I am aware that the tendency of the modern democrat is to decry the rights of property, and their value. I am also aware that it is customary to sneer at property as being a recognition of the rights of bricks and mortar. But I remind those who talk in that way that the institution of property lies at the very basis of civilization as it exists to-day. Some people are accustomed to put in juxtaposition property and individuals, as though they were necessarily antagonistic! There were individuals in Australia before Captain Cook ever sailed into Botany Bay; but there was not any civilization, because there was not any institution of property. The individuals then living in Australia had nothing but the law to which Senator Carroll referred - the law of the Scotch borderer -
The good old rule
. the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can.
– That rule is still followed by our boasted civilization.
– Our boasted civilization has something to boast about. Although I realize that it has its defects, I should be sorry to see anything done to break it down altogether.
The next thing to which I wish to refer is the crisis through which we are passing. From the material crisis through which we are passing I have no doubt we shall emerge successfully in due time ; but it appears to me that there are graver dangers from the moral aspects of the crisis than from its material aspects.
– Hear, hear !
– I do not know why the honorable senator applauds that sentiment. On the principle that “ neces sity knows no law,” we have been compelled to do things unwillingly. Some of the things that we have done have bordered so closely on repudiation that some persons say that they amount to repudiation. I do not think that that is so. Of repudiation we had an instance in the declaration of Mr. Lang, the Premier of New South Wales, that he proposed to tell the London bondholders that New South Wales would not pay the interest due to them, not because the State could not pay, but because it would not do so. That is very different from calling together our own people, and telling them that the country is in such a position that we must ask them to agree to certain things. They do agree. In one sense they have to agree, because it is the only way of saving the country; but the fact remains that they do the thing asked of them. I am afraid that what we have been forced by stress of circumstances to do in these times of crisis may be used as a precedent to do the same things again in times of normality.
Those who believe that every advance towards socialism and sovietism is an advance towards slavery should meet that advance whenever and wherever it takes place. As in the case of a military position, the proper place to defend a political position is at the outposts. If we surrender the outposts to the enemy, sooner or later the main position will have to be abandoned. That is why I am unable to understand why Senators Guthrie and Elliott apparently do not realize that, if they abandon the principles upon which their whole politics are supposed to be based, they will later be left without argument to defend any advance against those principles. The danger to our present social position is not the frontal attack. Communism, socialism and sovietism in all their nakedness would be resented by our people; but, when they come before us couched in soothing words such as “ orderly marketing,” “ stabilizing prices,” and “ allowing the farmer to regulate his own affairs,” men like Senators Guthrie and Elliott accept them without realizing that they are abandoning a position upon which, later, they might have to rely. It is for that reason that, at the Easter conference in Sydney, when some of the “ reds “ obtained a majority and proclaimed the faith that was in them, the better tacticians of the movement realized that it was not good policy, and they thereupon rescinded the resolution, or, at least, watered it down, although not altering the platform upon which the whole party stands. Senator Elliott votes for the bill “ with no enthusiasm,” as I can well imagine; but he regards it as “ an effort to give the farmers an opportunity to decide matters for themselves.” Senator O’Halloran says that the bill gives to the farmer the right to decide; he sees no reason why the matter should not be decided by a majority of the farmers, because he believes in majority rule. Having reached a definite stage in what I have to. say on this bill, I now ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted ; debate adjourned.
page 4812
The following papers wore pre sented : -
Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act - Statement re Pensions for the twelve months ended 30th June, 1931.
New Guinea Act - Ordinance No. 21 of1931 - Superannuation (No. ‘2).
page 4812
Senator BARNES (Victoria - Vice-
President of the Executive Council) [3.45]. - by leave - The right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) has authorized me to make the following statement with reference to government business : -
In discussions with the Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate and the House of Representatives, fears have been, expressed that if theAppropriation. Bill were passed and the Government, therefore, had Supply for the whole of the financial year, it would not proceed with the discussion and completion of the tariff in Parliament this year.
In answer to that I have no hesitation in repeating the undertaking that when the Senate resumes in four to five weeks after the adjournment the first legislation to be introduced into the House of Representatives will be the tariff, with the exception of any emergency legislation necessary to complete the plan.
The Government is determined to have the tariff completed in another place, so that it may reach the Senate before the 1st November. Parliament will be kept in session to deal with any requests that come from the Senate and also to watch the budget position, and to deal with any other important legislation that may be necessary.
The Government has no desire to interfere with the legislation in’ the Senate, or to force its measures through with undue haste. We hope, however, that the Appropriation Bill may be passed before next Thursday, so as to pay the salaries of the public servants which are due on that date. I hope that that will be sufficient time to discuss thoroughly the whole of the items in the Estimates.
[3.47]. - by leave - The statement just made by the Leader of the Senate on behalf of the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) removes a great deal of the uneasiness and misapprehension that had existed in the mind’s of honorable senators on the Opposition side of this chamber. Our fear throughout has been that we would be deprived of any effective voice in the discussion of the tariff. The statement made by the Prime Minister in another place, and by the Leader of the Senate in this chamber, fixes a definite date upon which the Senate will have the tariff before it, and also gives a further undertaking that Parliament will be kept in session to deal with any request that may be made by the Senate in the debate on the tariff. I express the opinion that the undertaking just given by the Leader of the Senate is satisfactory, and that we shall be glad to facilitate the passage of measures which the Government may bring forward, reserving to ourselves the right to give to the Appropriation Bill that careful consideration which its importance warrants. On the undertaking that has been given, we will also facilitate government business by agreeing to a sitting of the Senate on Tuesday if that is desired, in the hope that possibly we shall be able to complete the business before the end of next week.
page 4812
Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday next at 3 p.m.
Senate adjourned at 3.49 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 July 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310731_senate_12_131/>.