View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
22 October 1931

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SHALE OIL INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD
QUESTION
- OVERSEA WAR SERVICE
QUESTION
- MOTOR FUELFROM COAL BY-PRODUCTS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- SALES TAX
PAPER
WHEAT BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
WHEAT CHARGES BILL
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL
- Second Reading
WHEAT BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
RULES PUBLICATION BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Maritime Industrial Dispute

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1025

QUESTION

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice-

Is it the intention of the Government to further assist the Shale Oil Commission in its work in the production of shale oil by a grantof money, larger than the present sum of £93.000?

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

– The Treasurer baa supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

The sum of £93,000 was allocated by the Commonwealth Government for the repatriation of surplus mine-workers in New South Wales, and the Shale Oil Development Committee was established for the purpose of administering this fund in connexion with the development of the shale oil industry. There is no present intention of increasing this allocation.

page 1026

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Senator DUNN:

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

In view of the close approach of Christmas, and the amount of unemployment in the shipbuilding industry, will the Governmentat once instruct the Naval Board of Australia to send all obsolete warships to Cockatoo Island in order that the work of breaking them up may bc put in hand!

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

All naval vessels now in reserve are earmarked for specific naval duty in emergency. None of them is obsolete, and it is regretted that none can be made available for breaking up.

page 1026

QUESTION

OVERSEA WAR SERVICE

Senator DUNN:

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

Is there any regulation or act in force that would allow the Commonwealth Government or Defence Department to conscript persons for oversea naval or military service?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer fo the honorable senators question : -

No power exists for compelling oversea military service. The relative portions of the Defence Actare: -

Section 59. - All male inhabitants of Australia (excepting those who are exempt from service in the Defence Force) who have resided therein for six months and are British subjects, and are between the ages of eighteen and 60 years shall, in time of war, be liable to serve in the Citizen Forces.

Section49. - Members of the Defence Force who. are members of the military forces shall not be required, unless they voluntarily agree to do so, to serve beyond the limits of the Commonwealth, and those of any territory under the authority of the Commonwealth.

In regard to the Naval Forces, section 33 of the Naval Defence Act 1910-1918 provides as follows: - “ Members of the Naval Forcesmay be required to serve for training or any naval service either within or beyond the limits of the Commonwealth.”

page 1026

QUESTION

MOTOR FUELFROM COAL BY-PRODUCTS

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to sot aside a sum of money for the purpose of assisting the Lynns Bros., engineers, of Newcastle, in their research on the subject of the production of motor fuel from coal byproducts ?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

Arrangements have been made for Dr. A. C. D. Rivett, chief executive officer of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, who is an authority on the question of the productionof oil from coal, to inspect the works of Messrs. Lyons Brothers, on or about the 26th November next. Fending the receipt of a report from Dr. Rivett, it is not possible to determine what further action, if any, is desirable on the part of the Commonwealth Government.

page 1026

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that the Government recently instructed that all officers of the Public Service must take their furlough before reaching the age of retirement, willhe ascertain and inform the Senate -

How many officers underthe control of the Public Service Board have been allowed to remain in the service longer than the period laid down by the Government’s decision; what are the names of such officers and the reasons for making exceptions in each case?

How many officers in the parliamentary service have been allowed to remain in the service longer than the period laid down hy Government decision; what are the names of such officers and the reasons for making exceptions in each case?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The information asked for in the first portion of the honorablesenator’s question is being obtained. The second portion of his question should be addressed to the presiding officers of Parliament.

page 1027

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Regulations and Rulings

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will the Government consider the compilation, at an early date, of a uniform set of regulations and rulings dealing with the sales tax, especially those which relate to the Sales Tax Acts passed last August?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Treasurer states that the Commissioner of Taxation has had this matter in hand for some time, but has been unable to complete it owing to the great volume of pressing work under the Sales Tax Acts. The handbook will, however, be issued as early as possible.

page 1027

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Report o£ the Imperial Geophysical Experimental Survey, edited by A. B. Broughton Edge and T. H. Laby.

page 1027

WHEAT BOUNTY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders he suspended as would prevent the bill from being passed through all its stages without delay.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.11]. - I do not intend to oppose the motion; but I do not wish my acquiescence in it to be misunderstood. I have had an opportunity of reading this bill, as it was distributed to honorable senators this morning. It is a complicated measure, which deals in the most intricate manner with a very important subject. It does not appear to me to be the class of bill which should be rushed through the Senate without full consideration. Perhaps the Minister’s explanatory speech may make clear to me things which are not clear at present; but I suggest that, after the Minister makes his second-reading speech, the Government should agree to adjourn the debate until a later hour this day, or until to-morrow, so that we may have an opportunity of studying the probable effect of certain obscure clauses. Very often honorable senators, before being asked to deal with measures, have the advantage of reading the Ilansard report of the speeches made on them in another chamber, but that is not the case in this instance, because the bill was onlypassed by the other House last night. I’ have read abridged press reports of thediscussion that occurred there, but I do not understand how it is proposed to make the measure effective. I shall not be prepared to continue the discussion immediately after the Minister concludes hiss second-reading speech.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

. - I agree with the right honorable senator that the bill is somewhat intricate. The Government has no intention of asking honorable senators to pass it without due consideration. Every opportunity will be given to discuss the different clauses at the committee stage; but I accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), and, at the conclusion of my second-reading speech, I will move that the debate be adjourned until a later hour this day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dooley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I feel sure thathonorable senators opposite will agree that the Government has left no stone unturned to give the farmers that assistance which it considers they rightly deserve; but many obstacles have been put in the way of its doing so. Through the rejection by the Senate last year of the Wheat Marketing Bill, our farmers were left in a desperate plight. Many of them were faced with ruin. A return recently prepared for the Attorney-. General (Mr. Brennan) showed that a large number of farmers have been compelled to file their schedules in the Bankruptcy Court. Many other farmers who are in bankrupt circumstances are being carried by their creditors in the hope that, with returning prosperity, they will be able to liquidate their obligations. Realizing the paramount need of granting assistance to the wheat-growers,the Government swallowed the rebuff administered by the Senate, and brought down lim Wheat Advances Bill. This measure wai passed through both Houses of Pari liament, but the refusal of the Commonwealth Bank to provide the necessary advances rendered that scheme nugatory. The Government, however, was able to arrange with the bank to increase its advance on wheat from 2s. to 2s. 4d. per bushel f.o.b. The advance was made to voluntary pools on all unsold wheat in their hands, and those farmers who were participants in the voluntary pools profiled to the extent mentioned.

The Premiers Conference held in February, 1931, gave’ consideration to ways and means of providing financial assistance for wheat-growers. The proposition considered was the raising of a loan of £6,000,000 to provide a bounty of 6d: a bushel on the 1930-31 wheat, crop, and, iu addition, to enable loans to be made to farmers in necessitous circumstances. However, it was subsequently decided that the time was inappropriate for an approach to the loan market. It was then proposed to grant the necessary relief in another manner, and the Fiduciary Notes Bill was introduced, with the concomitant Wheat Bill. The rejection by the Senate of the Fiduciary Notes Bill closed this avenue.

Meantime, the plight of the farmers was growing more and more desperate, and a further attempt was made, by means of the Wheat Marketing Bill, to give the assistance so urgently required. That measure was similar to the 1930 Wheat Marketing Bill, with the exception of the provision for a guaranteed price. Once again the Senate refused to approve of the assistance proposed to be given by the Government.

The matter was further considered’ at the Premiers Conference held in August, 1931, and the conference endorsed a proposal for the payment of a bounty of 6d. per bushel for wheat produced in the 1931-32 season, provided that the bounty would not bring the f.o.b. price above 3s. per bushel. The matter was referred to the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks with the object of arranging for the necessary finance, and the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank submitted a basis on which a bounty might be provided. This bill has been drafted along those lines. The banks could not see their way clear to include in the scheme the wheat harvested last season, and the bounty is, therefore, limited to the 1931-32 season.

The main feature of this proposal ‘is that the bounty will be payable to the grower of wheat upon its delivery to a licensed purchaser - that is, a wheat merchant, flour miller, wheat pool, or other prescribed co-operative organization. On. the delivery of the wheat to the licensed purchaser, the wheat-grower will receive a certificate which will indicate the quantity of wheat purchased, and the f.o.b. equivalent of the price paid per bushel. Upon presentation .of the certificate at the Commonwealth Bank, the wheatgrower will receive payment of bounty. As there is no straight-out price fixed in the case of wheat pools, the certificate will bear an estimated price, and provision is made for an adjustment, if necessary, when the price can later be ascertained.

The purpose of requiring purchasers of wheat, to be licensed is that control may be exercised to secure compliance with the terms of the act. With regard to wheat sold for consumption in Australia, the bill provides that the licensee shall, pay to the Commonwealth Bank as agent for the Government an amount equal to the bounty . paid, but not exceeding 6d. per bushel. In this respect a separate Wheat Charges Act is necessary to give power to collect the charge not exceeding 6d’. per bushel to which. I have ‘ just referred. This measure provides for a charge hot exceeding 6d. per bushel to be paid by persons or organizations licensed under the Wheat Bounty Act 1931 on all wheat, in respect of which such licensees have been issued a certificate under that act, and which such licensees (a) have on or before the 31st October, 1932, sold for consumption within Australia; (h) have on or before that date used in the production of flour for consumption within Australia; or (c) have on hand on that date.

Senator E B Johnston:

– The Assistant Minister has not informed the Senate why the Wheat Advances Act of 1.930 is being repealed.

Senator DOOLEY:

– It was my intention to refer to the repeal of that measure in committee. The Commonwealth Bank could not see its way clear to finance the scheme, and doubtless, as the farmers have commenced to feel that they have been humbugged by legislation, it is thought desirable to repeal the act.I submit that the farmers have no occasion to blame the Government in this connexion as it has endeavoured to place on the statute-book legislation to assist them. Although they may have thought it was only so much eye-wash, in reality, the Government left no stone unturned to provide some form of relief to the wheatgrowers, and the Senate has to takeits share of responsibility for the rejection of’ certain measures introduced by the Government, to assist the wheat-growers. It has been found impracticable to bring the Wheat Advances Act of 1930 into operation, and it is just as well to tell the farmers that the Commonwealth Bank has refused to make the money available. If we do so, they will know exactly where they stand. We should at least tell them that it is impossible to give effect to the provisions of that measure, and that the only alternative is not to dabble further with this question which, I contend, has already been dabbled with too much. Had the Senate agreed to the Government’s first proposal, which provided for the payment of a guaranteed price of 4s. per bushel, something could have done, because at that time the Commonwealth Bank was prepared to make an advance. As time went on, the price of wheat commenced to fall, and eventually dropped from 4s. or 5s. to1s. 6d. per bushel. No one could then foresee that such a drop in the price of wheat would occur just as it could not be foreseen two or three weeks ago that the price would increase to the extent it has. The farmers wish to know where they stand. We must be honest in matters of this kind. The Government, having been refused financial assistance by the Commonwealth Bank in respect of the Wheat Advances Act of 1930, is now endeavouring to place on the statute-book a measure which will be of practical assistance to the wheat-growers.

Debate(on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) adjourned.

page 1029

WHEAT CHARGES BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended, and bill (on motion by Senator Dooley) read a first time.

page 1029

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL

Motion (by Senator Dooley) proposed -

That the report- be adopted.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.26]. - I rise to correct a statement which I made in speaking yesterday on the subject-matter of this bill. I said -

There is associated with this committee - the Public Accounts Committee - a secretary who doubtless has some staff to help him. So longas the committee is maintained under existing conditions the members of the staff must be retained in their positions, even if there may be no work for them to do.

I further said that the staff could have only a limited amount of work to do at present. At the time I made those remarks, the committee was, I understand, engaged upon an inquiry - and is at present conducting that inquiry - which does give the secretary and staff associated with the committee a normal amount of work to perform. I have no desire to reflect upon any officer of the Public Service, and as my remarks may be construed to mean that, although the committee is functioning, its officers are not fully employed, I wish to correct that statement. I am sure that if the committee is engaged on an inquiry, as I understand it is, its officers are fully employed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

page 1029

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 20th October (vide page 870), on motion by Senator Dooley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– An impression was created during the debate on the Public Accounts Committee Bill that the officers of the committee were not doing any work. The Leader of the .Opposition (Senator Pearce) made a personal explanation yesterday in regard to his statements in that connexion. It may also be thought that the officers of the Works Committee have nothing to do while the committee is not functioning. But I point out that the secretary of this committee, Mr. Whiteford, is the chairman of the committee appointed to inquire into the milk supply of Canberra.

Senator Foll:

– Will he also be asked to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the hog farm in the Federal Capital Territory?

Senator DOOLEY:

– No investigation has been ordered into that subject. If the honorable senator can advance sufficiently good reasons for the making of it, it will doubtless be made. The officers of these committees are not simply waiting about for something to turn up. Their services are fully employed in various ways. When officers of other departments are absent through sickness or other causes, the officers of these two committees are available for relief purposes. I hope that the Senate will pass this bill, and also that it will accept the proposal of the Government in regard to the membership of the committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

Section three of the principal act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “3. - (1.) As soon as conveniently practicable after thu commencement of this section, and thereafter at the commencement of the first session of every Parliament, a joint committee of seven members of Parliament, to be called the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works ( in this act referred to aa ‘ tin* committee ‘ ) , shall be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament with reference to the appointment cil members to serve on joint select committees of both Houses of the Parliament. “ (2.) Two of the members of the committee shall be members of and appointed by the Senate, and five of the members of the committee shall bc members of and appointed by the House of Representatives.”.

Amendment (by Senator Dunn) proposed -

That thu word seven proposed new section 3 sub-section 1. be left out with a. view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I hope that the committee will not accept the amendment. My two years’ experience on this committee has shown that it is, at times, extremely difficult to obtain a quorum. If the membership of the committee is reduced to five the difficulties in that respect will be very greatly increased. Such a limitation of the membership of the committee will undoubtedly mean that at times the committee will not be able to function. Even with a membership of nine, there have been times when, through sickness and other causes, the attendance of a quorum has been assured only with great difficulty. No economy will be effected by reducing the membership of the committee to five, because only those members of the committee who attend the meetings can draw fees. I realize the vital need for economy in these times ; but we shall delude ourselves if we think we are effecting an economy by further reducing the membership of this committee. Moreover, we shall make it difficult to apportion the membership fairly between the two Houses of Parliament and the different parties. If a membership of seven is agreed to, some latitude will be allowed.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I also hope that the committee will reject the amendment. I reiterate the statement of Senator Sampson that no economy will be effected by reducing the membership of the committee to five. “We must remember that the interests of efficiency deserve consideration. Economies are needed in these days, but so is efficiency. If the membership of the committee is reduced to five, the efficiency of the committee will be greatly endangered. I ask the honorable senators to accept the assurance of Senator Sampson and myself on this point. It is extremely difficult at times, even under existing conditions, to obtain a quorum. Seeing that the committee will only function when Parliament asks it to do so, we shall not be running any risk of incurring great expenditure by accepting the clause as it stands.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- A day or two ago this con>mittee indicated by an- unmistakeable vote that,’ under “ present conditions, a membership of five was sufficiently large for these committees. If there has been a difficulty in the past in securing a quorum, I suggest that it has been due to the fact that the wrong members have been appointed to the committee. Hitherto honorable senators have been willing to accept appointments to these committees, because they have realized that it would not always be necessary for them to be in attendance. I will go as far as to say that the attendances at the committee meetings have been more or less perfunctory. If honorable senators, or the members of another place, accept the duty of membership of these committees, they should do the work that is required of them. They should at least make arrangements to attend the meetings regularly. It is hard to believe that sickness has been an important factor in making it difficult to secure a quorum at the meetings of a committee the effective membership of which is 10; but if that is so, I suggest that the remedy is to appoint healthy members to the committee. There is a great similarity between the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee, and it would be absurd for us to say that, although five members are sufficient for the former, seven are necessary for the latter. When the financial situation eases somewhat, and there is a large amount of work for the Public Works Committee to do, the act could be amended to provide for the appointment of additional members.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– I hope the committee will reject the amendment. Many of the arguments used in opposition to the proposal to appoint five members to. the Public Accounts Committee apply with equal force to this proposition. An inquiry may be necessary in New South Wales. If the committee has two Tasmanians and two Western Australians included m its membership; it may be difficult for them to attend^ for I remind honorable senators that these committees do most of their work during the parliamentary recesses when members like to be in their constituencies as much as possible. If the committee had only five members’ on * it, I am sure many inquiries would ‘ have to be made with only three members present. It would be farcical, I suggest, to reduce the membership so greatly.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Five members should be ample when the committee has uo work to do.

Senator DOOLEY:

– The honorable senator has himself suggested that when the committee has more work to do, five members would not be enough. Should we not bear in mind that we are legislating for a committee which will have work to do? It seems to me that the amendment has been moved in a spirit of contrariness. Certain honorable senators wish to be “ ag’in the Government.” information furnished to me shows that on many occasions not 50 per cent, of the members of this committee are present al its sittings. Many reasons apart from sickness may be advanced to explain this. As Senator Reid has pointed out, inquiries are often made in States far distant from those represented by some members of the committee, and this makes attendance at the committee meetings very difficult. If an inquiry is being held in New South Wales, it might be very awkward for Tasmanian or Western Australian members of the committee to bc present.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– A member of a committee who cannot attend its meetings should resign.

Senator DOOLEY:

– They are frequently prevented from attending at the last moment. In view of all the circumstances, I ask the committee to agree to the clause in its present form. If public works are to be undertaken to relieve unemployment, as I hope will be the case, it may be necessary for the Public Works Committee to function before the end of the year.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I consider that the committee should consist of not less than seven members. T hold no brief for this committee, particularly when I realize that it was responsible, among other things, for rejecting a scheme to provide ornamental lakes in Canberra which, if constructed, would have been of great benefit to those who are compelled to reside here. It would be interesting to know why the Government has introduced this measure at this juncture, when other important legislation is awaiting our attention. Notwithstanding the fact that a Debt Conversion Bill, a Debt Conversion Agreement Bill, a Customs Tariff, a Wheat Bounty Bill, and many other small but important measures are awaiting our consideration, the Government places at the top of the noticepaper a bill which merely provides that the number of members of the committee, which is not even functioning, shall be reduced from ten to seven. It would appear that the Government is anxious to delay a discussion of important measures, otherwise it would not give prominence to such «n unimportant ill.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- In view of the vote which I recorded on the Public Accounts Committee Bill J must, in order to be consistent, support the amendment. Having had experience as a member of the Public Works Committee, I feel that a committee of five could function as efficiently as a committee of seven. The important work undertaken by this committee from tun? to time could be more efficiently performed by a smaller committee, With an unnecessarily large number of members there is a good deal of wearisome repetition in the cross examination of witnesses, and, consequently, unnecessary expense in the printing of evidence. The committee of which I was a member did excellent work, and I believe that with a smaller committee closer attention could be given to the proposals which it has to consider.

Senator Reid:

– It is sometimes difficult to get a quorum, and with a committee of five the difficulty would be intensified.

Senator PAYNE:

– If a careful selection were made it would be easier to get. a quorum with a smaller committee than under the present system. Parliament could select a representative committee, the members of which would attend regularly and devote their time to the important work they are expected to perform. It is easy for a member to attend meetings of the committee and claim his fee without giving the slightest attention to the proposal before it. On numerous occasions very important matters have been investigated by a sectional committee consisting of three members.

Senator Reid:

– Because a quorum could not be secured.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is not so. It was done to save unnecessary expense.I could readily select a committee of five members who would attend every sitting of the committee. I support the amendment.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– Having had a fairly long experience as a member of the Public Works Committee I am able to speak with authority on the excellent work it has performed on behalf of this country. The Government favours a committee of seven because it, realizes that, owing to the attention which some of its members have to give to the requirements of their constituents, a smaller committee may not be able to efficiently carry out the important work entrusted to it. Moreover, on a committee of. five each State could not have representation. The members of such committees do not profess to be experts, but as practical men they are able to sift the evidence tendered by technical and other witnesses, and come to a satisfactory decision. It has been shown that during the time the committee has been functioning it has investigated public works costing approximately £26,000,000, and has saved the country no less than £5,000,000.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Where is that £5,000,000?

Senator BARNES:

– It was spent by the Government which the honorable senator supported. Each State should he represented on the committee.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– At present Victoria is not represented on either the Public Accounts Committee or the Public Works Committee.

Senator BARNES:

– After all, that is a matter for Parliament to determine. I consider that every State should be represented on a committee of this character. While I was a member of the Public Works Committee, it inquired into a profiosal to construct a railway in South Australia - a matter of widespread interest in that State. Certain recommendations were made, and the representative of South Australia on the committee possessed first-hand knowledge which enabled him to explain the matter fully to the public men of his State and to the people generally. The amendment should not be considered for a moment, but should be thrown out, so that an opportunity would be afforded for every State to have representation on the committee.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I am still unconvinced and unrepentant, and would move for the suspension of the operations of this committee for a limited period ifI thought that a majority of honorable senators would support me. On the principle that “ half a loaf is better than no bread,” I intend to vote for the amendment.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

. - I hope that, even at this late stage, honorable senators, particularly those who represent the smaller States of the Commonwealth, will change their attitude towards this proposal. They must already realize how difficult it is, in view of the weight of representation of two of the States in this Parliament, to secure the appointment of their representatives to bodies of this nature. The fewer the number of members, the less chance will their States have of securing representation. It may be advantageous for certain States to be represented on the body that conducts an investigation into proposals for new works within their borders. There would be less opportunity of that occurring if the amendment were agreed to than if the proposal of the Government, were accepted. As Senator Sampson and others have pointed out, this is not a measure of economy, because the Public Works Committee is not functioning at the present time, and is not likely to function until the opportunity is afforded to it to investigate works with which the Government can proceed.

Senator BRENNAN:
Attorney-General · Victoria · ALP

– I agree with Senator Payne, that it is not mere numbers which make for case in obtaining a quorum, but that, on the contrary, the very knowledge that there is a. number of spare members may be responsible for some degree of laxity in regard to attendance which would be absent if members of the committee knew that should they not attend, a meeting might lapse. That fact, I consider, would be likely to lead to their making a special effort to attend.

There is a good deal to be said for the view expressed by Senator Payne, that better concentration of attention is obtained from a smaller than from a larger number of members. I dissent entirely from the view of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) that there is any suggestion of State representation in relation to any of these committees.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Have not all the States the right to be represented?

Senator BRENNAN:

– That may be so when an investigation is being made into matters in which a State should have a voice. I should think, however, that it would be almost a disadvantage for a State to be represented when the inquiry was into a matter in which it was interested. Senator Barnes recalled a ease in which a South Australian member of this committee was able to explain fully to the public men of South Australia why it had recommended against a proposed railway in that State. He must have been a spartan member; because the tendency would be for a South Australian member to throw all his weight behind what he regarded as in the interests of the State and not of the Commonwealth. I consider, therefore, that we should not lend our support to the view that this is intended to be a body on which all the States must have representation. As Senator Duncan has pointed out, the force of that argument, if it ever had any force, is entirely negatived by the fact that what I call the most important State, and what he calls the second State, was not represented on either this or the Public Accounts Committee when the membership numbered nine. It is quite clear, therefore, that the question of State representation was not taken into account in the past. I agree that the amount of economy to be effected is not very large. It has been said that this committee is doing no work at the present time, because no money is available for expenditure upon public works. Consequently, Senator McLachlan might meet with’ a greater measure of success if, in the different circumstances which operate in the present case, he moved for the suspension of the operations of this committee for a definite period.

Senator Sampson:

– Its operations are suspended now.

Senator BRENNAN:

– If they are suspended in fact, no harm would be done if they were suspended under a definite provision in the act.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The major consideration ap pears to be that we ought to construct a committee upon which all States would have representation. We must bear in mind, however, the fact that when the committee had a membership of nine, the obligation rested upon those responsible for the selection of its members to give to some States greater representation than was given to others. Therefore, those States which had only one representative, or which were not represented at all, had a more pronounced grievance than any State could have if all except one were represented on a committee of five members. There must be anomalies, whatever is done. There are some cabinets in Australia which consist of only five Ministers, and the duties that they discharge are more onerous than are those for which this committee is responsible. Surely we are not asking too much when we seek to reduce its numerical strength to their level.

Question - That the word proposedto be left out (SenatorDunn’samendment) be left out - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Further amendment (by Senator Dunn) agreed to -

That the word “five “, proposed new section 2, sub-section 2, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “three”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section seven of the principal act is amended by omitting the word “ five “ and inserting in its stead the word “four”.

Section proposed to be amended -

Any five members . . . shall form a quorum. . . .

Amendment (by Senator Dunn) agreed to-

That the word “ four “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ three “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

.- I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 4a. Section 39 of the principal act is amended by omitting the word “ Two “ (wherever occurring) and inserting in its stand the word “ One “.

The object of this amendment is to reduce from £2,000 to £1,000 per annum the sum allocated from the Consolidated Revenue for the work of the Public Works Comanittee. It is a similar amendment to that which the Senate inserted in the Committee of Public Accounts Bill. In view of the reduction of the personnel of the committee to five, £1,000 should be ample for the payment of fees to members of the Public Works Committee.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 1039

WHEAT BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from page 1029.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE ( Western Australia) [4.55]. - The Minister who moved the second reading of this bill agreed to the adjournment of the debate until a later hour in order that I might have an opportunity to peruse his remarks so as to help me in elucidating the provisions of the hill. I find that 95 per cent. of the speech was a misrepresentation of the action of the Senate in regard to the oilier wheatbills, and 5 per cent. of it an elucidation of this measure.

It is a pity the Government cannot look on. the question of wheat except in terms of votes. It is said that the mouse values the world in terms of cheese. I am certain that the Minister for Markets looks on wheat in terms of votes. His speech reeks of an attempt to appeal for votes for the Government for what it has done, and against the Seriate for what it has done. I am not sure that it would not be a good thing to impose a restriction on speakers by compelling them to adhere to facts. It would most certainly be a severe limitation upon some of them. It would cramp their style considerably. We have this fine example in the speech of the Minister -

Through the rejection by the Senate of the Wheat Marketing Bill our farmers were left last year in a desperate plight.

The drop in the world price of wheat had nothing to do with the plight of the farmers ! It did not affect them in the slightest! All would have been well if only the Senate had passed the bill for a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel and a compulsory pool ! The farmer would have been happy and prosperous, thanking God for the existence of the Scullin Ministry, and, in particular, Mr. Parker Moloney ! Was there ever such a travesty of the facts as is contained in the speech of the Minister?

First of all, the Senate was not responsible for the drop in the price of wheat on the world’s market. That was a matter entirely beyondthe control of the Senate, and in regard to which it has no voice or vote. Nevertheless, it is the principle cause of the plight of the farmer, not only in Australia, but also in every other country in the world. But the Minister blithely takes no notice of that fundamental fact.

Would the passing of that’ bill by the Senate have saved the farmer? I venture to say that it would have put him in an even worse position. Does the Minister think that we are so blind to all that has passed since that bill was rejected not to realize that if the Senate had passed the measure, the Government could not by any means have found the £20,000,000 which would have been necessary to implement the guaranteed price in that bill? The disproof of that suggestion is in the fact that when, later, the Senate passed a bill introduced by the Government, which required the raising of only £3,000,000, the Government found that it was unable to raise even that amount.

We remember another little instance in connexion with that particular bill. A small clause provided that if any provision of the measure was found to be unconstitutional, the unconstitutionality was to affect that provision only ; the rest of the bill was to stand. I think that honorable senators pointed out at the time that there was a grave doubt about the constitutionality of the provision relating to the payment of a guaranteed price.

Realising the paramount need of granting assistance to the wheat-growers, the Government swallowed the rebuff administered by the Senate, and brought down the Wheat Advances Bill.

I have said before, that this Government will swallow anything. When we think of the indignities and dictations Ministers have swallowed from their own party, and from the No. 2 section of the Labour party, the section known as the Lang party, itis very unkind, I suggest, for one Minister to draw attention to the swallowing capacity of the Government. Then the Minister went on to say -

The Wheat Advances Bill was passed through both Houses, but the refusal of the Common wealth Bank to provide the necessary finances rendered that scheme nugatory.

If the Government, plus the Commonwealth Bank, could not finance 3s.a bushel, how could it have financed 4s. if the Senate had passed that particular bill ? Then we have another gem from the Minister well worth repeating. He was referring to various conferences which had been held, and said -

It was then proposed to grant the necessary relief in another manner, and the Fiduciary Notes Bill was introduced with the concomitant Wheat Bill.

This meant that our wheat-farmers were to be paid in a discredited currency. They must be thankful that the Senate saved them from that misfortune. The Minister went on to say -

Meantime the plight of the farmers was growing more and more desperate, and a further attempt was made to give the assistance so urgently required. This was the Wheat Marketing Bill, which was similar to the 1930 Wheat Marketing Bill, with the exception of provision for a guaranteed price Once again the Senate refused to approve of the assistance proposed tobe given by the Government.

I think it may be said of that bill that it went to its grave “ unwept, unhonour’d and unsung”, even by those who spoke in support of it. But while that measure was under consideration the Senate did indicate a proposal that would have been of some practical help to our farmers in respect of last season’s wheat. The Senate declared clearly and unmistakably that if the Government would agree to introduce a bill imposing a sales tax on flour, the Senate would pass it. This would have provided real money for our wheatgrowers, instead of a discredited currency under the Government’s proposal. The Government did not take advantage of that offer, because Ministers were afraid that it might mean an increase in the price of bread, but they have now introduced a measure, the indirect result of which will be to cause an increase in the price of bread.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE The Minister’s elucidation of the bill has left honorable senators as uninformed concerning its provisions as they were before he spoke. We must, therefore, attempt to elucidate its involved and complicated clauses as best we can.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.This sum, we are told, is to be distributed among our wheat-farmers, but the limitation of the amount realized to 3s. per bushel will, I suggest, lead to all sorts of complications and difficulties. As we understand the scheme, the banks have agreed to make this amount available provided the price of wheat does not rise above 3s. per bushel f.o.b. If it does, no bounty will be payable, and, in any event, the bounty payable must not exceed 6d. per bushel.

What I regard as a serious defect in the scheme is the fact that it. will take away from the private wheat-buyer, or the authorities controlling the pools, the incentive to obtain a higher price per bushel for any of the wheat sold, because it is obvious that if there is to be a price limit of 3s. per bushel, it will not matter to them what price it realizes, provided it is not less than 2s. 6d. per bushel, as the balance will be paid in the form of the bounty.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Because of our present difficult financial position, it is of the greatest importance that we should obtain the highest price possible overseas for our primary products. For this reason, we should not insert in this legislation any provision which may damp the ardour of private buyers and pool authorities; on the contrary, they should be stimulated to secure the highest prices possible.

I see another danger in the scheme. As honorable senators are aware, under existing arrangements, Australian wheat is not sold and sent overseas immediately it is harvested. It is disposed of in an orderly manner, and there is always a reserve held to meet home requirements, and also to take advantage of any increase that may take place in the world’s market. If this bill is passed in its present form, the incentive will be to dispose of the wheat and ship it overseas as quickly as possible. There will be no encouragement to hold any portion of the harvest for a further rise in the market, and unless the price exceeds 3s. nobody will benefit from the improvement in the market, because, under this proposal, the payment of the bounty will ensure that the farmer gets that amount.

The provisions of clause 6 appear to me to be rather mysterious. That clause provides for differentiation in the procedure to be adopted in respect of pools and private wheat buyers. It stipulates that the private wheat buyer must state, in his certificate, the price which he has paid for the wheat. It reads -

1 ) Every licensee other than a prescribed co-operative organization shall issue to the grower, in respect of wheat purchased from the grower or received from the grower for sale, a certificate in duplicate, in the prescribed form, specifying the quantity of wheat purchased or received by him from thegrower, and stating, as prescribed, the free-on-board equivalent of the price per bushel paid or to be paid for the wheat.

In the case of a prescribed co-operative organization, the same procedure is to be followed, except that the licensee will be required to state the “ f ree-on-board “ equivalent of the price per bushel estimated by the organization to be that at which the wheat will be sold “. I cannot understand why there should be this differentiation between wheat handled by a pool and wheat handled by a private buyer, but it seems to me that it will open the door to manipulation that would be to the disadvantage of the Government while not being advantageous to the grower. Furthermore, I point out that in this bill, and in the concomitant measure, there is no reference whatever to a limit of £3,000,000. Apparently the banks have intimated that they are able and willing to make available that sum but no more.

Surely in considering such a measure as this which, after all, is a bounty bill applied to production, we should, as far as possible, insert provisions similar to those precautions included in other measures relating to the payment of bounties. In the bills dealing with the payment of bounty on cotton, steel, and iron, and other products, we specifically provided for the payment of a bounty of so much per ton, or so much per lb., and stipulated also the total amount of bounty payable under the respective acts. We did not concern ourselves with the market price of the commodities concerned, nor did we insert intricate provisions relating to the manner in which the product is sold, or who sold it. All that concerns the taxpayer is the amount of his liability. Why could not the same simple procedure be followed in this hill? Why did not the Government provide for the payment of a bounty not exceeding 6d. per bushel on all wheat sold, and definitely fix the total amount of bounty payable at £3,000,000 ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Under existing arrangements, our wheatfarmers have to wait twelve months for the final payment. I understand that the pool’s final dividend on last season’s wheat was distributed only a few months ago in Western Australia.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.At any rate, there would be room for manipulation. No one who remembers the scandals associated with the wheat pools towards the end of the war would say that it was impossible for history to repeat itself.

Senator Colebatch mentioned a point to me which I hope he will not mind my referring to as it is of considerable importance. Is there not a possibility of the farmers being treated unfairly by this cumbersome method of granting them assistance? Supposing one farmer sells his wheat to a pool for 2s. 6d. per bushel, and later another farmer sells to the pool for 2s. 8d. per bushel. It seems as though both farmers will get the same price for their wheat. Should not the farmer who sold his wheat for 2s. 8d. get the advantage of the 2d. perbushel?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is so. There are difficulties in regard to freight and other charges. I can see many ways in which inequalities might fall on the farmers by the operation of the machinery of this bill, which could be avoided if a straight-out bounty act, with a limit to expenditure, were passed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there is necessity for such a complicated scheme. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Government should redraft the bill along the lines of other bounty measures. The administrative procedure in connexion with ordinary bounty bills is well understood by our departmental officers, and has proved effective. Here we have an intricate and complicated system which has never been tried. I am afraid that there will be hopeless confusion and numerous inequalities if this scheme is adhered to. I shall vote for the bill, but I suggest that before the committee stage is reached, the Government should consider the advisableness of devising a simpler proposition for the granting of assistance to the farmers. It should be possible to draft a scheme which would be simpler in its operation, more equitable in its effects, and less liable to manipulation than the one laid down in this bill.

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) that a good deal of difficulty may arise in giving effect to the provisions of clause 6 of the bill, andI have promised Senator McLachlan that, before we reach the committee stage, I will discuss with the Crown Law authorities the possibility of recasting the clause with the object of preventing any possibility of the occurrence of such mischief as that referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government would have welcomed the opportunity to introduce a simple bounty scheme if our financial authorities would have agreed to fina,nce it. I am instructed that at the conference with the banks, the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) submitted several schemes for granting assistance to the wheat-growers, and the scheme of this bill was the one which the bank authorities accepted.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Was the proposal for the payment of a straight-out bounty submitted to the bank?

Senator DALY:

– I understand that it was; but I make that statement subject to correction.

SenatorO’Halloran. - The difficulties were caused by the banks fixing the limit at 3s.

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Westtern Australia) [5.34]. - I do not wish to say one word in regard to any previous bill in relation to the wheat industry. This bill is sufficiently important, sufficiently intricate, and sufficiently difficult to occupy our attention. It is unfortunate, I might even go so far as to say it might be the subject of complaint, that the Senate should be asked to deal with a difficult bill like this under conditions which do not provide time for a proper consideration of it. The introduction of the bill was delayed until the last moment. Another House is almost ready to rise, and on the Senate is cast the responsibility of passing this bill after immature consideration, or of exposing itself to the charge that it is standing in the way of the farmers receiving some concession which the Government wishes to give them. Whether or not we have ground for complaint on that score, we have reason to complain of the Government’s failure to give the Senate full information, and a complete outline of the proposals embodied in this bill. We are told that it is understood that the banks will not do certain things, but will do others. Why should we have a vague statement of that kind? Why cannot we have the position from the view-point of the banks clearly placed before us? A most complicated and intricate sub-clause was inserted in the bill in another place last evening. Was that inserted at the request or with the knowledge of the banks? I am fully convinced that there is no banking institution in this country which wishes to see an entirely complicated scheme put up.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This is the scheme they submitted to the Government.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Did the hanks submit what is contained in this bill? Were the proposals embodied in clause 6 submitted by the banks ?

Senator Daly:

– They submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister, a copy of which is now in the chamber.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– It would be very interesting to know what that memorandum contains. It is a pity it was not submitted when the bill was introduced. I ask leave to continue my remarks after that memorandum has been read.

Leave granted.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– by leave - The memorandum from the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board to the Prime Minister is dated the 7th October, 1931, and reads -

RE WHEAT BOUNTY.

Pursuant to the arrangement with you 1 have been in conference with Mr. Drummond and the Governor, Mr. Biddle, with the object of endeavouring to evolve a practical working plan in accordance with the proposal to pay a bounty up to6d. per bushel on export wheat, provided the f.o.b. price does not exceed 3s. per bushel.

The procedure necessary to carry the plan into effect is necessarily somewhat complicated, and we have consulted with representatives of the wheat shippers, flour-millers, and wheat pools so as to meet as far as possible any practical difficulties which might confront them in carrying on the business.

There would appear to be no doubt that the export bounty proposed will give the greatest benefit to farmers, particularly where such is most necessary; this is as against the proposal to pay a lesser bounty upon production.

After careful consideration, we have evolved * provisions which we think are necessary to carry out the plan. These are embodied in the enclosed memorandum for your consideration and adoption if deemed advisable in legislative form.

Proposed System Under Which Wheat BonusShould be Paid.

All persons engaged in the shipment of wheat or flour from Australia who desire to come under the operations of the export bonus system, must obtain a licence from the Government as arecognized exporter and must satisfy the Government as to their financial ability to meet the obligations laid down in the working of the scheme.
No bonus shall be paid on any wheat in respect of which the price f.o.b. is 3s. per bushel or more.
Where the price paid by the licensee to the grower is less than 3s. f.o.b., he shall issue a certificate to the grower stating the price at which he has purchased from the grower on an f.o.b. basis.
The grower, on presentation of such certificate, shall be entitled to receive from the bank the difference between 3s. f.o.b. and the price paid by the licensee, not exceeding6d. per bushel.
The licensee shall, on the 31st October, 1932, be called upon to account for every bushel of wheat upon which he has issued certificates to the grower, and he shall pay to the Commonwealth Bank, as agent for the Commonwealth Government, a price equal to the average of the bounty in respect of all certificates issued by such licensee on every bushel of such wheat which he has not shipped at that date. 6. (a) Where the licensee is a flour-miller he shall account to the Government every fourteen days for the total amount of the flour sold for internal consumption iu Australia, and for every bushel of wheat sold for the same purpose, and he shall pay the Commonwealth Bank as agent for the Government 6d. per bushel for every bushel of wheat disposed of for internal consumption. The number of bushels for which he shall account, when such has been converted into flour, shall be based upon bushels per ton of flour. On the 30th November, 1932, the flour -miller shall pay to the bank an amount calculated at the average of the bounty in respect of certificates issued by the flour-miller, on the total number of bushels” for which certificates have been issued, less the equivalent in bushels actually exported, after allowing for fortnightly adjustments during the period up to the 30th November, 1932. 6. (b) Every miller on day of 1931(a date to be fixed prior to new crop deliveries commencing )submit a return to the Commonwealth Government of stocks of wheat and flour on hand. Such stocks on hand shall be included in returns rendered in terms of the act, but shall bc excluded from the operation of the act. 7. ( 1 ) In the case of wheat pools the certificates issued shall show, in addition to the arranged advance, the amount of bounty payable to the grower.
1. For the purpose of assessing the return to the grower, the amount of the bounty shall be added to the advance by the pools, plus the expense of administration of the pool.
2. Should the roturn to the grower amount to 3s. per bushel on an f.o.b. basis, any surplus arising from the pool shall be used to refund the bounty, or portion thereof, paid in respect of certificates issued by the pool, and no payments shall be made by the pool to the grower which would increase the return to the grower beyond 3s. per bushel on a f.o.b. basis unless and until the bounty paid in respect of certificates issued by the pool have been refunded to the bank.

That is the basis upon which the bill has been drafted. Slight alterations which have been made to the bill have been agreed to by the hanks.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is so.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.If the private buyer offers 2s. 9d. and the co-operative organization says that itf estimate is only 2s. 8d., it is to th< advantage of the grower to sell through the pool at the lower price, because in the one case he will get from the private buyer a certificate entitling him to s bounty of 3d., whereas in the other case he will get a certificate entitling him to a bounty of 4d., and he would know that in addition to the extra Id. by way of bounty his wheat was going into the pool but of which he would get the full advantage.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What about the refunds the co-operative organizations mus make?

– The Minister said that this scheme was submitted by the Premiers Conference to the banks.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes; but I want to throw the definite responsibility upon the Government. It says, in clear and emphatic terms, that the banks decline to find the money for the wheat-farmers except under the scheme embodied in this bill. That being 30, I say to my colleagues in the Senate that the bill will at least ensure to the wheat-farmers of Australia 3s. a bushel, and not less, for their wheat unless wheat falls to a very low price, and the Government has to accept the responsibility of the Senate passing this measure with that knowledge.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I regret that a measure like this should be rushed through both Houses of this Parliament at such short notice. »We are dealing with a bill which affects the interests of a vast number of our people who have been having a very bad time, and I am afraid that this proposal will prove a very inadequate form of assistance to them.v It has not been possible for its terms to reach many parts of Australia and to be understood by those whose interests are so vitally affected by it, and although we are quite unable, from our individual knowledge, to say how its provisions will affect the various interests throughout Australia, we are asked to pass the bill through to its final stages at this sitting, the Minister in charge of it having moved the contingent notice of motion, which permits of the suspension of the Standing Orders, to enable this to be done. The Senate should hesitate to pass the bill until a reasonable period has elapsed for its full consideration.

The more I study the measure, themore satisfied am I that, associated with it, there are certain problems which, i» practice, will be extremely difficult to handle. Consequently, 1 am convinced that the measure requires a most careful consideration before it passes this chamber. At the same time I realize that wcare on the eve of the harvest. Within a very few days now, the new season’s wheat will be starting to come into the market, and it will be practically impossible, 1 take it, for the Government to reconsider the whole basis of the measure, have further consultations with the financial institutions, and go through the whole procedure that has already been adopted in connexion with the proposal, before asking Parliament again to consider it. In the circumstances, the responsibility for the bill in its present form rests with the Government, and 1 think that, in its essence, it will have to he accepted by this Parliament.

I am satisfied that if the PremiersConference had been sitting last week, instead of a few weeks ago, when this subject was under consideration, the probability is that we should have had an entirely different bill presented for our consideration. As far as we are able to follow the genesis of the project, a:indicated in the press reports of the proceedings of the Premiers Conference, the fundamental idea upon which it wat based, was the assumption in the minds of everybody that it was impossible, within a reasonable time, to expect to se*1 wheat in the vicinity of 3s. per bushe f.o.b. Australia. That clearly was theview held by those most competent t(‘ judge the situation at the time of the recent Premiers Conference. Sterling had then not broken and, as we know, the decline in sterling materially affected the price of wheat. That was one facto? which affected the wheat situation to & material degree, and, looking into the future, I venture to suggest that two factors which may come into the equation may profoundly affect future wheat prices in Australia. One factor if British sterling. It may harden. We may see it pick up a very material proportion of the loss which has been regis- terod during the last few weeks. This would have the immediate effect of re ducing the f.o.b. price of wheat in Australia. The other factor is that, before this harvest is completely sold - indeed, before very much of it is sold at all for shipment overseas - it is conceivable that a material reduction will be reported in the present rate of exchange.

Senator McLachlan:

– That surely is inevitable.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I would not say it is inevitable, because we are living in a period of such kaleidoscopic changes in the world of finance, that one hesitates to forecast what may happen.

Senator Rae:

– Would the abandonment of the gold standard in England affect the rate of exchange?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The price of sterling would have something to do with the abandonment of the gold standard.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Surely “ abandonment “ is too strong a term to apply to the change in Great Britain.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

-“ Temporary suspension “ is what the people in England would call it. I do not say that recent changes in Great Britain are tantamount to a permanent abandonment of the gold standard ; hut the two factors which I have mentioned may conceivably - I think Senator McLachlan would say “probably” - affect the price of wheat; and, in all probability, the change will be in a downward direction.

I believe that if the Premiers Conference had been sitting last week, this bill would not have come up to the Senate in its present form. I should hesitate, too, to say the banks would have insisted upon the measure in this form, and no other form. But the Government has taken the responsibility of telling the Senate that this is the best proposal which it could get from the banks. Personally, I think that the present form of the bill is due to the way in which the proposal was submitted to the banks. Had it been put to those institutions in a different way, I think it probable that we should now be considering a different bill. There again responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the Government.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator knows that all the Government did was to bring under the notice of the banks the resolution of the Premiers Conference.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What was that resolution ?

Senator Daly:

– That there should be a bounty on wheat, with a maximum price of 3s. per bushel.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Exactly. And the banks, therefore, said : “ We will agree to a bounty of 6d. on wheat, which is the amount you ask for, provided we are not asked to find a bounty if wheat goes above 3s. per bushel.” If the Premiers Conference had submitted to the banks a proposal for a straight-out bounty of 6d. per bushel, in all probability we should have got it.

Senator E B Johnston:

– That is a certainty.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Again 1 say the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of this Government. I am afraid that it is too late now to re-argue the details of the scheme with the banks. I believe that in this bill the Government has to some extent endeavoured to rectify what I think was a genuine mistake. By thisI mean that it does not tie the bounty down to a price for wheat of 3s. per bushel, but has adopted an expedient which will enable it to re-argue this case with the banks. This is suggested in clause7, which reads -

The rate of bounty payable in respect of any wheat shall be the amount per bushel by which the free-on-bonrd equivalent of the price per bushel as stated in the certificate issued by licensee in respect of that wheat falls short of the prescribed price, but not exceeding in any case 6d. per bushel.

I have no doubt that the Government adopted that form in order to give it a certain amount of latitude in arguing the case anew with the banks, to see if it was not possible to have the bounty paid on a higher maximum price for wheat than that considered in the original request which the Premiers Conference submitted to the banks. This provision will undoubtedly enable the Ministry to do that. But we must be quite sure that no dispute arises later as to what is the agreed amount. It will be of no use for the Government, subsequent to the passing of this bill, to declare its intention to pay the bounty on wheat at 3s. 6d. if the banks have not agreed to that variation of the arrangement. The Government must be quite sure, if the Parliament gives it this liberty of action in clause 7, that it will not render the whole of this legislation nugatory, as other legislation has been rendered nugatory in the past, by not having a clear understanding with the people who have to find the money. Whatever the prescribed figure may be, we must be quite sure that there is no doubt about the matter with the financial institutions that have to find the money.

I wish now to say a few words about a point which the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) and Senator Colebatch raised, namely, the possibility of collusion between the buyer and the seller, in consequence of which the grower may be paid a greater amount of bounty than would be justified according to the market price of wheat. I admit that there is a possibility of such collusion taking place. I have no doubt that it could happen; but, at the same time, I do not think that the Government would be wholly without resource in the matter. First of all, there will ha a certain amount of rivalry between the buyers. As a. matter of fact, there is very real rivalry at the present time between independent buyers and the co-operative organizations. This competition will tend to keep prices up. But it is conceivable that a.n individual seller and an individual buyer will come to an arrangement under which the seller will get a greater amount of bounty than he is entitled to receive according to the market price of wheat, and the buyer will agree to split with the seller the difference between the amount which he pays the seller and the amount which he receives for the wheat. I think everybody can see the possibility of this collusion, and although I do not know how it is to be overcome, I imagine that the Government proposes to meet such a contingency by the conditions attached to the licence to bc issued to buyers. If it were apparent that any transaction of the kind described was going on, that is to say, if it were evident that some buyers were not giving the market price for wheat, and some sellers were prepared to take less than the market price, the licensed buyer would, 1 presume, lose his licence.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Who would decide that matter?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I admit that the problem presents certain difficulties, but if it were abundantly evident that collusion was taking place, I think it could be dealt with.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator’s suggestion is an excellent one.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Government. I believe, could handle any attempt at collusion, although I do not say it would be possible to overcome it in every individual instance. If, however, the practice became widespread it would manifest itself, and the Government could take action along the lines I have suggested. As Senator Colebatch has said, this measure has been very ingeniously drafted, and if it were not for one class of buyer I think the operation of the aci would be a comparatively simple matter. A difficulty arises in connexion with the great co-operative organizations of primary producers, and personally, at the moment, I do not see how it will be possible entirely to overcome it. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to mak* particular reference to certain provision? now, so that when we are dealing with them in committee, it will be quite clear that they have received that consideration which I feel their importance deserves.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable gentleman may make general observations with regard to underlying principles of the various clauses.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I wish to refer particularly to the provisions of clause 6, in which a distinction is drawn between the ordinary private buyer, whose case is quite a simple one, and the seller of wheat through a co-operative organization. The provisions relating to the cooperative organizations are contained ii> sub-clauses 2 and 3 of clause 6; and also in clause 10. Sub-clause 2 of clause 6 enacts that a co-operative organization shall issue to the grower in respect of wheat received by it from him - a certificate in duplicate in a prescribed form specifying the quantity of wheat so received, and stating, as prescribed, the free-on-board equivalent of the price per bushel estimated bv the organization to be that at which the wheat will be sold, and specifying the bounty payable in respect of the wheat.

That would be all right, and there would be no difficulty whatever provided the organization could identify each parcel of wheat which it had in the pool, and each parcel which had been sold. But, of course, that cannot be done, because a grower may have had a half a dozen consignments of wheat in the pool. The estimated price of the wheat when he puts his first consignment into the pool, may be different from the estimated price when he puts his second, third, fourth or fifth consignment into it.

Senator Barnes:

– That will not matter; for he will be paid on his certificates.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Even if he is paid on hie certificates, difficulties will arise. Let us take the case of A, who puts his wheat into a pool controlled by a co-operative organization, at an estimated price of 2s. 8d. It is clear that he will be given a certificate at that price and on the assumption that the prescribed maximum price on which bounty is payable is 3s., the certificate will enable him to obtain a bounty payment of 4d. per. bushel. Then take the case of B, who, a fortnight later, puts his wheat into the same co-operative organization at an estimated selling price of 2s.10d. a bushel. It is clear that he will be given a certificate which will entitle him to obtain a bounty payment of 2d. per bushel. The way these co-operative organizations work ordinarily is to pay to every grower when he puts his wheat into the pool the average price which they receive for all wheat that goes into the pool. It must be quite clear, therefore, that if they proceed along those lines A will get 2d. per bushel more than B for his wheat.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Even though the f.o.b. price of B’s wheat was higher.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

There is one other aspect of the subject in regard to co-operative organizations about, which I should like to say a word, although it lias already received some consideration from the Government. What would be the position of the cooperative organizations in the event of over-payments of bounty having been made? In the event, of the estimated price stated on the certificate issued to the seller to the pool being lower than the actual price received, it may be necessary for a co-operative organization to refund quite large amounts of money to the Government. What is to be the position of these co-operative organizations upon which this responsibility is thrust in the event of a lien being given over the wheat? In such cases, of course the whole of the proceeds received by the pool for the wheat goes to the lienee. The position then is that the co-operative organizations, even if desiring to make the equalization to which I have referred, would have nothing out of which to effect it. In the case of a lien where the whole of the proceeds of a crop are not the property of a member of the organization, it i.1quite clear that the obligation to find the money would be thrown upon the organization.

Senator DALY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who would place the wheat in the pool?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The pointI am endeavouring to make is that underthe provisions of clause 10 the burden is going to fall on the farmers through their organizations; I do not see how that is to be overcome. I know that the matter is receiving consideration, and 1 hope it will receive further consideration before the bill reaches the committee stage.

SenatorRae. - Cannot the co-operative organizations keep back sufficient to make the necessary adjustments?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The funds do not belong to them; they have no power to keep back any portion. It may be that it will be found possible to give them that power; but I do not know whether such a course is practicable.

Senator McLachlan:

– The Commonwealth cannot give that power.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not think the Commonwealth can pass a law affecting the rights of the lienee. I suggest that that matter receive the immediate consideration of the Government.

I do not wish to take up any further time in discussing this measure. I feel, however, that it is inadequate to meet the position in which the wheat-growers find themselves. I am convinced that the form of the bill is governed by the nature of the request made to the banks. I contend that the request to the banks was wrongly framed. It would have been infinitely better for the farmers and for the country if the Government had asked the banks to raise the necessary money to enable it to pay a straight-out bounty of 6d. a bushel to the wheat-growers. I think tha Government could have got the money from the banks if a straight-out request had been made to them in that way.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Probably it is not yet too late.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am afraid that it is. The harvest is almost upon us, and we do not wish to risk the possibility of another fiasco in the matter of payments to the wheat-growers. I think it better to accept the bill in this form, or subject to such amendments as the Senate thinks necessary, in order to let the farmers know at all events that out of this measure they will get something which will be of assistance to them.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I am glad that at last the farmers are to get something; but I wish to point out some of the difficulties and injustices to which they are. being subjected under this bill. During the 30 years of federation, numerous bounties have been paid to different industries. There occur to one’s mind at once the large sums that have been given to those engaged in the iron and steel industries, and to those engaged in the production of cotton, flax and cattle for export. There has never been any difficulty in obtaining a straightout bounty on the total production or the export quantity of these commodities. “We also find that our secondary industries have been generously assisted. No difficulty has ever been found in giving those engaged in secondary production, all the protection and -assistance that they wanted and a great deal more than they needed. During this long period the primary producers, and particularly the wheat and wool growers have had to bear the brunt of the burden of tariffs and bounties. It has now become too much for the wheat-growers, who, in their present parlous state, find it impossible to carry on. For the last, two years they have been asking for assistance, but when an offer is made to them, it is on a totally different basis from that on which those engaged in other industries, which have been assisted by bounties or tariffs have had assistance. The wheat industry is the only industry to which assistance has been approved by legislation which has not received a straight-out bounty. When the Government now promises to provide 6d. a bushel on export flour, we find that a string is attached to the proposal. If the price of wheat in the markets of the world should increase - although the increased price may not bring it up to the cost of production, or provide the farmer with a living or even the basic wage - the farmer is to receive only about threefourths of the cost of production. The generous banking institutions or whoever is responsible, have now said that if the f.o.b. price of wheat reaches 3s. a bushel, no bounty shall be payable. They are saying, “ After starving you, we will give you a bone or only one-half of the cost of production.” If the price reaches 3s. » bushel f.o.b. they are not to receive anything at all. It is a monstrous proposal, and I hope that the efforts of the Government to increase this pittance to Sr. fid. a bushel will be successful. I am glad that the Government has introduced the hill in a form which will permit the payment of 3s. 6d a bushel, or a bonus of 6d. a bushel irrespective of the price of wheat, if the banks agree.

I wish now briefly to refer to the repeated disappointments which the wheat-

Senator JB. fi. .Johnston. growers have experienced during recent years, not with the object at the moment of apportioning the blame, but in order to show how the farmers’ interests have been disregarded. The first bill that, came before the Senate provided for the payment of a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel, but that payment was to be subject to the State governments providing one-half of any loss that might accrue under the guarantee. For the first time in federal history, the States were asked to provide one-half of the bounty, and on an unequal basis owing to the variation in production and in the matter of population. The proposal was so unjust that some States refused to accept the heavy liability involved, and the bill was lost. In December of last year, a Wheat Advances Bill, under which the paltry price of 3s. a bushel f.o.b. was offered, was approved by Parliament. Although that act is now on the statute-hook, the nation has defaulted in its promise to the wheat-growers, who have not received the price promised. They have been “ welshed “ out of it, as no payment whatever has been made. After 30 years of federation, that is the only bill that has ever been placed upon the statute-book of the Commonwealth or of any of the States which has been entirely ignored.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That would not be sufficient, but it would be better than 3s. What I ask is that the Government should make a straight-out request to the banks for a bounty of 6d. per bushel on export production. If that wore granted, and the provisions of this measure relating to the charging of 6d. per bushel on that portion of the crop used for local consumption were operated, we should be doing something to help the wheat-farmer, and the assistance would he on the same unrestricted basis as that which has been given from time to time to many other Australia industries. The figures that I have quoted show clearly that the cost of production under average conditions in Western Australia, where there is cheap land and a regular rainfall, is 3s. 5d. per bushel at the rail head, or slightly over 4s. per bushel f.o.b. Yet under this measure, the farmer is to be restricted to three-quarters of the cost of his production. In connexion with other bounties, it is laid down by law that the employees in the industry shall receive the basic wage. The payment of 3s. per bushel f.o.b. will not represent to the farmer, his sons, or his assistants, even that return, let alone show him a profit on his production, interest on his capital, or any remuneration for the hardships that he is called upon to endure in the way of long hours, isolated conditions, and the absence of many “ of the every-day services, such as water supply, electric light, gas, and other conveniences, that are enjoyed by the people in the cities. I doubt whether, under this measure, he will be allowed to receive even three-quarters of the basic wage before the assistance which it professes to give will be withdrawn. I warn the Government that, the wheat-growers are desperate, and that in them are being awakened forces that it will not be easy to control unless justice is meted out to them. The following paragraph, which appears to be authentic, and to have been inspired, was published yesterday in the Melbourne Herald: -

A meeting of the representatives of the associated banks in Victoria was held to-day to consider the request of the recent interstate conference of wheat interests that the banks should finance fid. a bushel bounty on export wheat provided this did not increase the f.o.b. price above 3s. fid. per bushel. 1 hope that that is the minimum that the Government will accept, and that it will continue to negotiate until at least that small result is attained. The paragraph continues -

No finality will be reached until later in the week. The banks agreed in September to provide £3,000,000 for a bounty of Od. a bushel provided it did not take the price over 3a. per bushel.

I repeat that there can be little doubt that a genuine mistake was made by the Premiers Conference in connexion with the form in which the request for this assistance was made. It seems to me incredible that unless a mistake waa made, the Commonwealth should be restricted by the lender of the money in regard to the extent to which assistance should be given. This is a most unusual condition, particularly when we consider the amount of money which the wheat-growers owe to the trading banks. In many districts the mortgages held by tho banks are so heavy that they are virtually the owners of those districts. The decline that has taken place in the prices of products and the value of land is so great that the owners have little equity in their holdings, and are really only managers for the banks. In those circumstances, the banks would not only assist in the rehabilitation of this nation, and in carrying out the desires of the economists who drew up the Premiers’ plan, but also would be conserving their own interests very considerably, if they allowed the wheat-farmers the extra amount which would enable them to meet some of their obligations. A great deal of the money would percolate back to the banks, and relieve their creditors in many other directions. Even from that point of view one would anticipate that the banks would much prefer having the Government as their creditors for th, £3,000,000 rather than that the farmers should be denied overdrafts which would furnish them with money for working expenses, as they will be if this bounty is restricted to wheat at 3s. a bushel f.o.b. The Herald article continues -

The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) conveyed the decision of the conference to the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank (Sir Robert Gibson) yesterday. Sir Robert immediately forwarded it to the chairman of the Associated Banks in Victoria (Mr. G. Ti). Healy) and to the representatives of banks with headquarters in other States. Since the original proposition was made, wheat has increased, until to-day the f.o.b. price is approaching 3s. a bushel. Wheat-growers und Ministers for Agriculture who attended the interstate conference last week pointed out that unless the guarantee price was increased the bounty would be of very little use.

Bankers in Victoria are divided on the advisability of grunting the request for an increase. They do not agree with the contention of the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney) however, that when the original decision was made the question of a guarantee price was merely incidental to the main consideration of the advance of £3.000,000.

According to this press statement the Minister for Markets, who conducted the negotiations, evidently contends that the main consideration of the banks was that the advance should be confined to £8,000,000, and that the guaranteed price of wheat was merely an incidental matter. And to me it seems perfectly reasonable that such should be the case. That being so there is, undoubtedly, a distinct obligation upon the banks to find the whole of the £3,000,000, and on the Government to pay the bounty of 6d. a bushel on all wheat exported without restriction as to what, the price may be at the time the advance is made.

Senator Barnes:

– “Will the honorable senator say how that can be done without the consent of the banks?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I take it that the Government will approach the banks. The form in which the bill has been submitted makes it clear that even now the negotiations with the banks are not completed; even now the bankers have not given any reply to the request the Government put before them at the instance of the conference of the Minister for Markets with the State Ministers for Agriculture, held in Melbourne on the 16th of this month.

I think that a mistake was made by the Premiers Conference in regard to the form of the request put to the banks, and I have no doubt that these institutions would give the £3,000,000 unconditionally if the Government asked for it for the purpose of paying a wheat bounty. We do not know that they have been actually asked to do so. Senator Daly said that the request was made for the advance with the restriction which! appears in the bill. That might easily have been the case five or six weeks ago, when the price of wheat was about 2s. 2d. a bushel f.o.b., but to-day it is almost 3s. a bushel f.o.b. I contend that the provisions of this bill did not enter into the consideration of the trading banks. I do not know that those banks were even acquainted with them. The memorandum read by Senator Dooley this afternoon bore no suggestion that the terms of the Commonwealth Bank had been referred to or approved by the trading banks. If this bill, therefore, is not the response of the Government to the request of the trading banks, I hope that the request put forward by the conference of Ministers of Agriculture will be submitted to the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks, in a form quite different from that in which, according to Senator Daly, it was previously put before the banks.

The following telegram which reached me this evening from Mr. J. D. Seyfort, secretary of the Wheat-growers Union in Western Australia, shows the feeling in Western Australia in regard to this bill, and the disappointment it has caused among organized wheat-growers there : - .

Please urge on Western Australian senators to put the bounty price limit up to 3s. 6d. f.o.b. in bill before the Senate. Wheat at present is over 3s. per bushel in Fremantle and bounty therefore docs not operate at all.

I endorse the request made in the telegram. If it is acceded to the country will be saved the risk of exploitation. Much greater justice will be done to the wheat-farmers if no price limit is fixed and the Government and the banks approve of the bounty being paid up to at least 3s. 6d. f.o.b. for all wheat in the coming harvest. I again contend that the 6d. a bushel bounty should be paid on the whole harvest irrespective of the f.o.b. price.

– We are entitled to assume that, if the Government had really desired to pay our wheatfarmers 3s. per bushel under that legislation, it would have inquired of the Commonwealth Bank why there had not been an acknowledgement of the letter from the Acting Prime Minister. As I have said, nothing happened until the Prime Minister returned from England. The file records the holding of a conference on the 19th January, 1931, between thu Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin), Mr. Forde, and Sir Robert Gibson. The following is the summary of the proceedings : -

On the 19th January, 1931, the matter was discussed at a conference held in Melbourne between the Prime Minister (Et. Hon. J. H. Scullin), the Acting Minister for Markets (Mr. Forde), and the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board (Sir Robert Gibson). The Secretary of the Department of Markets (Mr. E. J. Mulvaney), and the Acting Solicitor-General (Mr. G. S- Knowles) were also present.

Because of a legal doubt, the Government, which led the people to believe that it was so anxious to help our wheatfarmers, turned round and said that it regretted that the act was not operative No effort was made to overcome the legal doubt, or even to refer it to the Crown Law Department. Contrast the Government’s attitude towards our wheatgrowers with its treatment of the Wiluna Gold Mines Limited. When it ascertained that it was unable to provide a certain guarantee for that mining company, it requested the State Government to do so, and undertook to indemnify it. But, because of the legal doubt as to the constitutionality of the bank’s position with regard to the payment of 33. per bushel for wheat, the Government promptly and illegally dropped the measure. The summary goes on to state -

At that conference the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board intimated that the board was unable to see its way to ad-‘ vance upon wheat any amount exceeding a sum which might reasonably be computed to represent the realizable export value of f.a.q wheat, and that the bank’s legal advisers had raised serious doubt as to the ability of the Government to safeguard the bank against any losses under the guarantee proposed by the Wheat Advances Act; furthermore, that the Bank Board was faced under an act of Parliament with the responsibility of conducting the business of the bank, and was under obligation to adopt any measure which might be deemed necessary to protect the bank against loss.

If the Government had asked Parliament for the necessary authority, as in the case of the Wiluna Gold Mines Limited, Parliament would have passed an indemnifying bill, and the objections of Sir Robert Gibson would have been met. The summary continues -

In the circumstances the Acting Minister for Markets intimated in the press that, as Mie Government was unable to obtain the necessary finance from the Commonwealth Bank to give effect to the Wheat Advances Act, by providing a guaranteed price on the basis of 3s. per bushel f.o.b. for f.a.q. wheat, wheatgrowers should, in view of the decision of thu Commonwealth Bank Board, proceed with their marketing operations in the ordinary way as though the act did not exist.

I had intended to refer to certain other” points, but iri- compliance with your fJshes, Mr. President, I shall not do so until the committee stage of the bill is reached. It is two years since the farmers were first promised a bounty on wheat, and it is high time that something at least should be paid to them.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– My first duty is to congratulate the Government upon having introduced this bill, though even while I offer my congratulations, I am conscious of a villainous sort of second thought that 1 should examine thyself to see whether 1 kuri really justified in offering any sort nf congratulations to it. But I atn pleased that aft*” a period of splendid pretence and masterly inactivity’ in respect to the wheat-growers, the Govern^ ment bag at long last decided to do something. The wheatgrowers are the last people iri the wide world who, in the ord- -nary course, would’ even think of asking any one to help them. The 30 years’ history of this’ Parliament justifies the making of such a remark, for this is the” fs rsl trine that the wheat-growers of Australia have ever appeared1 in the’ role df -supplicants for a measure of natural jus tice. They have generously helped other industries and Australia throughout this long period^ but have had very meagre acknowledgements of their efforts. It is only because of the special. and most unfortunate circumstances of this industry, that they arenow seeking assistance.

While I have congratulated the Government, I must also remind it now that it is sitting on the stool of repentance) that it is more” than twelve months since it very definitely promised to help the farmers. If the assistance now so tardily proposed to be given had been given then, many farmers would still be living on the countryside, whereas now they have joined the throngs of city dwellers who are living on the dole.’ Unfortunately, the Government kept promising the farmers assistance and sympathizing with them, but it is only at this eleventh hour that it has rushed thi* bill before Parliament. The best that can be said, therefore, is that this is belated sympathy. I realize that under existing circumstances, it is a big undertaking to provide £3,000,000 for the payment of a bounty on wheat. From information placed before us to-night, it appears almost certain that not one penny of that amount will go to the farmers of Western Australia. And if the price but barely equalled the cost of production, I sincerely hope that this will be so for the simple reason that 1 should like to see the wheat-farmers of the State which I represent retain their independence, so that they may not be charged in the future with coming like beggarmen to seek help from the Commonwealth, as tlie captains of other induS; tries hav’e been doing for many years. J have been studying the tariff recently, and J have been struck by the fact thai duties have been provided in the tarin* schedule which, in many cases, far exceed the manufacturing costs, duties far it) excess of what some manufacturer* wanted. It cannot be said that the bounty now proposed to be paid will bring the price of wheal up to anything like the cost of production, for the point at which the bounty will disappear is 3s. per bushel f.o.b.- It is’ manifestly impossible profitably fo produce, wheat in this’ country at that price. Any one who suggests that it can bo done, shows gross ignorance of the whole subject.

Because that was done, thousands of people in Australia are still lamenting.

There were only three ways in which the Government could have raised the £3,000,000 necessary to pay this bounty. It could have been obtained first, by means of a loan ; secondly, by general taxation on the whole people; and thirdly - and this is the course which any government with an atom of political courage would have adopted - by a tax upon flour.If such a tax had been imposed the farmers of Australia would have been helped, and the general public would have been brought to realize how dependent they are upon our wheat-growers. Every man who goes into virgin country to hew down trees with the object of bringing land into cultivation, has to pay a heavy tax on the axe which he uses.From the moment when he puts his axe into the first tree on his block until he has marketed his lust bag of wheat, every tool which he employs in successive operations is subjected to a tax imposed by the Commonwealth Government. But when the same farmer asks that a levy shall be placed upon the flour consumed in this country in order that he may receive some slight return of the taxation he himself has paid, to assist him in meeting his obligations, an overwhelming section of the community rise in their wrath and say, “ But consider how it will affect the cost of living.” The poor unfortunate farmer is taxed upon his axe, hia implements, his cornsacks, his food and drink, and clothing, and practically everything under the sun ; but when it is suggested that a tax should be placed upon flour in order to give him some slight return, the people who have benefited at his expense immediately become highly indignant.

I now come to the maimer in which the £3,000,000 mentioned in the bill is to be provided. I am rather sorry that the banks have fixed such a low limit, and atn pleased to find that the Government realise the justice of the claim of increasing the f.o.b. price to 3s. 6d. if that is practicable. But even that figure will not allow the farmer to even up his position. In essence, it will at least enable him to slightly reduce his indebtedness. I am rather grateful to the banks for what can be regarded as a patriotic act. Perhaps the thought is dictated by the dire circumstances of the occasion. Further credit, if it may be so termed, must be employed in other directions. The banks realize that other calls will be made upon their resources, and that is why they cannot willingly increase the amount to 3s. 6d. a bushel f.o.b., at least for the present. But it is ray most earnest wish that they will raise the limit to 3s. 6d.

In the matter of this bountyI realize that there is a choice between two alternatives.We can have uniformity or resort to what I may term non-uniformity. If we were to spread the whole £3,000,000 over the wheat marketed portion, there would be no trouble at all. It is true that if that were done no advantage could be taken of a rise in price which might occur is the meantime. The price of wheat in hardening, and the £3,000,000 to be provided is intended to fill the void between the price realized by the farmer and that prescribed by the Government. The Government is endeavouring to get a declared price of 3s. or 3s.6d. a bushel f.o.b. It is endeavouring to use the £3,000,000 to bridge the gap between what the farmer will get under present conditions, and the amount the Government proposes to fix after consultation with the banks. After doing that, it may be found that the £3,000,000 is more than sufficient or that it is far short of what is required. Two arbitrary conditions are imposed. There is the rigid limit of £3,000,000 as to the amount te be advanced, and a suggested rigid limit of 3s. or 3s. 6d. a bushel in regard to price. The first rigid limit of £3,000,000 presents certain difficulties. If the total export of wheat next season is more than 120,000,000 bushels, £3,000,000 will be quite insufficient to provide a bounty of 6d. a bushel. If, again, the price of wheat should drop to 2s. a bushel, £3,000,000 will be totally inadequate. For instance, if the price is 3s. a bushel, and something should occur to cause it to drop to 2s. a bushel, there will be a difference of1s. between the two extreme points. The sum of £3,000,000 would not provide anything approaching a bounty of 6d. a bushel. on the total production. If the market moves downwards, £3,000,000 will not do the job, and if it goes up the full amount may not be required.

I direct the attention of honorable senators to the provision relating to the private buyers of wheat. This measure throws upon private buyers the responsibility of issuing certificates to growers, stating the f.o.b. equivalent of the price per bushel paid or to be paid for the wheat. How is the difficulty to be overcome in the case of private buyers, who will be called upon to fix a price for wheat which may be sold from three, six or nine months afterwards? How can a private buyer of wheat issue a satisfactory certificate in the case of a commodity which may be marketed months after it is purchased? He will certainly secure himself by estimating a low final figure. The point is covered in the case of organizations or corporations, but no similar provision is made with respect to private individuals.

Sub-clause 5 of clause 6 deals with “ dockage.” Any person who sells inferior wheat should not enjoy the same advantage as one who sells f.a.q. wheat. A person who does not look after his business and produce wheat of fair average quality should bear the penalty. The two additional charges for which provision is made require a good deal of explanation, as an f.o.b. price is a recognized figure in every part of Australia. 1 welcome this bill, nevertheless, as an earnest endeavour on. the part of the Government to do something in the interests of the wheatgrowers. I am sorry that the occasion has arisen for the wheat producers of Australia to make this appeal to the Government. Had they been left to their own initiative, they would never have been compelled to seek assistance in this form. Neither would it have been necessary for my colleagues or myself to put the case for them. They would rather be the donors than the receivers of any benefits. They have been forced into this position owing to an unfortunate combination of circumstances. They are now asking for assistance which in comparison with that afforded by them to other industries is imperceptible. My earnest hope is that the occasion will not arise for the wheat-growers to approach the federal authorities in future. This bill will at least afford them some relief to which they are entitled, and I earnestly hope that their just claims will speedily be met.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– In the first place 1 should like to reply to the pleasantries of the genial Minister in charge of this measure, who dealt with this important subject from what I shall term a political viewpoint. If he desires me to review the action of the Government of which he is a member in connexion with the wheat industry, and the effect of its action prior to and subsequent to the last general election, I may inform him that as a result of promises made by it not only on the hustings, but in subsequent legislation, a loss of millions of pounds sterling has resulted to the farmers of this country. When the wheat-growers were promised «by a representative of Labour 6s. 6d. a bushel what was their outlook? What view did they take of the position? They imagined that there wa6 some substance in what eventually proved to be empty promises. As they had been promised 6s. 6d. a bushel, they held on to their wheat on a falling market, and. subsequently when a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel was promised they were again induced to hold their product. Eventually, when the market dropped, they suffered a considerable loss. Again when 3s. a bushel was guaranteed the same thing transpired. I regret exceedingly that the Minister should have dealt, with this subject from a political aspect, because the time will soon arrive when we shall have to justify our actions before those who sent us here. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will then have ah opportunity to expound their views on the utter ineptitude of the Government in dealing with the wheat question. We have now another proposal before us concerning which I wish to make a few observations. It embodies a proposal submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) when the Government first proposed to pay a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel, and to establish a compulsory wheat pool. The members of the Opposition were then prepared to give the wheat-farmers a bounty of 6d. a bushel as is provided in this measure.-* It seems to me that when this Government sets out to do the simplest thing in the matter of taxing the people or in the making of a grant to the wheat-farmers, it has the habit of obscuring to the greatest possible degree the object which it has in view. This measure, which I have only had a short time to peruse, brings my mind into a state of utter dislocation, and leaves me utterly incompetent to grapple with what it is intended to accomplish. I fail to understand why the Government should persist with a bill of this nature when there is so little difference, in the matter of the cost to the taxpayer, between doing something in a definite and concrete form and in a way which it could be easily administered and doing it in this complicated way. Probably the complexity has arisen through a lack of understanding of the wheat business. A consideration of the provisions of this bill involves an understanding not only of wheat-growing, but also of wheat-marketing. It is quite obvious that if something had been done in the direction first indicated of providing an export bounty on wheat the complexities with which we are now confronted would not have arisen. Senator Greene and Senator Colebatch referred to the difficulties that must be associated with the effective administration of such a measure as this. Knowing as I do what happened in relation to the wheat pools that were in operation during the period of the war, I can see what opportunities there are for fraud in connexion with the administration of this measure. It is my intention a little later to ask leave to continue my remarks, in order that we may have an opportunity to study this measure more closely so that we may endeavour to formulate amendments that will simplify it and eliminate those objectionable features to which I have referred. Before doing so, however, I wish to recapitulate for the guidance of the Minister, some of the difficulties with which I am faced. In the first place, I direct his attention to the absence of any provision with respect to stored wheat. I understand that not only do the merchants buy wheat, but they also receive tremendous quantities for storage, the growers retaining control over it for all time, and being able to dispose of it or hold it as they think fit. At one time the smaller voluntary pools received wheat in exactly the same way; they had the sheds and other facilities necessary for storage, and accepted it for that purpose. No provision is made in this measure for the man who elects to hold his wheat in that way to receive any assistance by way of a bounty, or to be given a certificate by any authority. The wheat covered by this bill is that which has been sold or delivered for sale to a licensee. But let us examine- the position that exists between prescribed co-operative organizations and the merchants who buy wheat. Discussing this matter with other honorable senators, I have learned that their state of mental fog is as great as mine. Lel us assume that on a given date, say the 1st November next, the price of f.a.q. wheat is 2s. 6d. per bushel. A private firm buys at that figure, and gives to the grower a certificate upon which he proceeds to draw from the Commonwealth Bank the bounty of 6d. per bushel in respect of every bushel that he has put in. A pool acquires on the same date a similar quantity of wheat at the sam* price, giving its certificate to the grower, who proceeds to cash it. Ten days later the price of wheat has risen to 3s. per bushel. What happens? The buyer of the wheat receives 6d. per bushel, but the pool has to refund that amount to the Government. There can be only one result: the whole of the wheat will be placed in the hands of those who are prepared to buy it; there will be an out and out sale, and the outcome must be that a number of pools will go out of existence. I believe in the maintenance of voluntary pools, just as one believes in the operation of the totalisator in competition with the bookmaker. With pools in existence, the farmers can elect either to hand over their wheat, or to sell it outright. Some may choose to adopt both courses - send half of their crop to the pool, and dispose of the other half; or they may divide it into three parts, storing one, selling another, and leaving the third with the pool.

Some extraordinary difficulties are presented by the provisions of clause 6. If the position, as those who are skilled in wheat marketing see it, were placed before the banks, upon whom the Government has to rely to find the money for this bounty, I believe that they would say, “ We will accept a proposal in the nature of a straight out bounty, for which we will find the money, and you oan. apply the provisions of those clauses which relate to the obtaining of an increased price for the wheat that is consumed locally.” That would be a much simpler way of handling the matter. It would work less unjustly to everybody concerned, and keep in existence the voluntary pools, which are such a useful adjunctto the wheat-grower.

The whole of clause 6 will have to he considerably clarified beforeI shall be able to accept any responsibility for this measure.I cannot adopt the view expressed by Senator Greene, that we should throw on the Government the responsibility for the bill. I realize the difficulties in which the Government has been placed. This legislation is the outcome of the Premiers Conference, and there is a partial connexion between it and the plan of financial rehabilitation. There has been some negotiation concerning it; but sufficienttime has elapsed since the communication ofthe bank was received by the Government on the 7 th October for a much longer period to have been allowed to this and another place for its consideration. A very close examination of it is necessary, because some of the difficulties that present themselves appear to be insuperable,I have discussed with other honorable senators the likelihood of pools making a much lower advance, hut I have been informed that they advance only up to about 80 per cent. of the amount received, and that that will probably enable them to make the refunds provided for in: the; measure.

The bill makes provision for the payment of a bounty: It is true that that is within the scope of the authority of this Parliament. Other provisions,however lay it down that the bounty is to be absolutely free, and shall not be liable as part of the assets of the person who receives it. I doubt whether that provision is within the competently of this

Parliament to enact After all, it is the grower whom we desire to assist, and the probability is that that provision was inserted by the Government with a view to assisting him. My unconsidered view, however, is that it will be utterly futile, and that all the remedies provided by State law will be available to the creditors of the wheat-growers.

There is another aspeet that evidently has had scant consideration from those who have been responsible for the drafting of this legislation. I refer to the position that will arise in connexion with a person who holds a bill of sale or a lieu upon the wheat of any grower. He would not be entitled to be given the certificate that has to be issued upon delivery of the wheat, because the bounty must go to the grower. Yet he has property te the wheat. It is by no means certain what redress the co-operative pooling society would have against the person who received the bounty.

Even at the risk of detaining members of another place, the Government would be well-advised te endeavour to recast this measure. It can be made so elastic as to be easily handled. If the complexities of the situation, which are apparent to the practical men who are accustomed to dealing with these matters, were placed before Mr. Riddle and Dr. Drummond, and they realized the effect that this measure was likely to have on the pooling system, I feel sure that they would agree to provision being made for the payment of an export bounty not exceeding in the aggregate a certain amount, rather than countenance what must lead to irritation. corruption and even worse results. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 1071

RULES PUBLICATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [10.15]. - I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this- measure is to restore to the Senate a right that was intended to be preserved to it under the Constitution - that of equal power with the House of Representatives in regard to the passing of any law. But, asI understand that it is the desire of the Govern ment to proceed with other business before 10.30 o’clock, the latest hour at which fresh business can be taken, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a future date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1072

ADJOURNMENT

Maritime Industrial Dispute

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [10.18]. - I should like to know if the Government has had brought under its notice a press report that, at a meeting of the seamen held in Sydney to-day to receive the report of the delegates who attended the conciliation conference in Melbourne, over the trouble to which I made reference yesterday, a resolution was carried calling out the crews on all ships engaged in the interstate trade. If the Government has had an opportunity to see that report, I should like to know whether it has given consideration to it, and whether it is contemplating any action to protect the trade and commerce of this country.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– I have not had the opportunity to see the report of what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) says the seamen have done, and I can only give the Senate the assurance that the Government, so that the trade and commerce of the country may not he embarrassed, is watching very carefully all moves that are being made. At this stage of the proceedings I am not able to give the Senate any further information.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 October 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19311022_senate_12_132/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 October 1931

QUESTION

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY

Senator DUNN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Senator DUNN:

Senator DOOLEY:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

OVERSEA WAR SERVICE

Senator DUNN:

Senator DOOLEY:ALP

QUESTION

MOTOR FUELFROM COAL BY-PRODUCTS

Senator DUNN:

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator DUNN:

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Senator COOPER:QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:ALP

PAPER

WHEAT BOUNTY BILL

Senator DOOLEY:New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Second Reading

Senator DOOLEY:New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator DOOLEY:

WHEAT CHARGES BILL

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS BILL

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL

Second Reading

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Rae:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator Dooley:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator REID:Queensland

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator REID:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Foll:

Senator REID:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:

Senator DOOLEY:New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator Foll:

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator SAMPSON:Tasmania

Senator REID:Queensland

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator FOLL:Queensland

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Reid:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Reid:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator BARNES:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator BARNES:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BARNES:

Senator McLACHLAN:South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator BRENNAN:Attorney-General · Victoria · ALP

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator BRENNAN:

Senate
22 October 1931

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

Senator BRENNAN:
Attorney-General · Victoria · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT