Senate
16 June 1948

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1948

The PRESIDENT (Senator’ the Hon Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 1996

QUESTION

ELECTION” MOTOR CAES

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel read the report in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald. headed “Election Cars - New Rule in the United Kingdom “, and stating that in future the number of motor cars for which special registration will he granted at election times is to be based upon the number of people on the rolls m each electorate? Will the Minister give consideration to amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act to make a similar provision in respect of Commonwealth elections ?

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

– I have read the report to which the honorable senator refers. My recollection, is that, as- the honorable senator said, motor cars will be lation basis. I believe that the scheme has some merit and is equitable to all parties. The matter is one for the Minister for the Interior, who deals with electoral questions, and I shall bring the honorable senator’s proposal to his notice. available to election candidates

page 1997

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Patients in Mental Institutions.

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Has the Minister for Health given any consideration to the proposal that mental patients in all public mental hospitals throughout Australia shall come within the provisions of the Hospital Benefits Act and thus he under Commonwealth control?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– The Government has given consideration to this matter and very recently I was authorized by Cabinet to discuss the whole question with Health Ministers of r.he States at a conference to be held in Melbourne on the 29th June. The honorable senator may rest assured that the Government approves the principle that patients in mental institution”) and their relatives should be relieved of the financial burden that rests upon them at the moment. Subject to agreement by the States, the Com.moonwealth is prepared to accept that liability. We are awaiting certain figures from the States, which I hope will be available in time for the conference. This matter is on the agendum and will be discussed at the conference.

page 1997

FLOOD RELIEF

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether any steps have been taken by the Government to assist those who have been rendered homeless and have lost their household possessions as the result of the disastrous floods which have occurred in Queensland and northern New South Wales.

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The provision of relief to sufferers in disasters such as the floods to which the honorable senator has referred is ordinarily the function of State governments, although the Commonwealth is .sometimes called upon to share the financial burden involved. In ring case the honorable senator can rest assured that every consideration will be given by the Australian Government to any requests which might be made to it for financial assistance.

page 1997

QUESTION

AIR MAIL CHARGES

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– Adverting to a question which I asked the PostmasterGeneral yesterday in regard to the present surcharge on air mail, can the Minister inform me whether’ it is a fact that in the United States of America a letter may be sent to any part of that country for an equivalent charge of 2$d., and from that country to any part of the world at an equivalent of only 5d.? In view of the extreme buoyancy of the revenue, will the Postmaster-General reconsider the abolition of surcharge on air mail and thereby bring the postal facilities of this country into line with those of the United States of America?

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– On the last occasion when the imposition of a surcharge on air mail was reviewed by the Government it was considered that in the circumstances obtaining at the time the Government would not be justified in reducing the charge. However, the matter is still under review.

page 1997

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Health inform me whether provision is made in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme for the supply of insulin to diabetics?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– The formulary provides for the supply of all types of insulin in the two forms and in the varying strengths required by diabetics.

Senator ARNOLD:

– In view of the fact that the members of the British Medical Association refuse to cooperate with the Government in supplying free drugs and medicines to the people of Australia, will the Minister for Health ensure that at least the most needy people in our community, particularly age pensioners, shall have facilities provided for them to obtain their requirements while the present strike of the British Medical Association continues?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I doubt that, the position is that the members of the British Medical Association, as a body; have refused to co-operate in the scheme, although many of them are doubtless acting in accordance with the request conveyed to them by their Federal Council. It will not be possible to ascertain for at least another month exactly bow many doctors are co-operating in the scheme, but, I point out that, in the meantime, some facilities are available in the public wards of the public hospitals which, under this Government’s arrangements with the States, are now entirely free to the people. On the 29th June, I shall discuss with the State Ministers for Health in Melbourne the provision of completely free out-patient treatment to the people of Australia. The principle has been approved in connexion with pharmaceutical benefits, the necessary money is available, and the proposal remains only to be implemented. All Premiers have agreed in principle, and r,he arrangements in favour of outpatients have been concluded in two States. The. only differences outstanding relate to the allocation between the Commonwealth and the States of the amount r,o be paid. I believe that when this scheme is in full operation, many of the difficulties experienced by people in the class mentioned by the honorable senator will be readily overcome.

page 1998

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that two steamers owned by the Matson Line are for sale, can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether the Government will consider purchasing them in order to assist in the transport of migrants to this country?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The provision of shipping for migrants is a matter for the Minister for Immigration, but I know that negotiations are taking ‘ place at present for the purchase of a vessel for that purpose. However, I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Immigration.

page 1998

QUESTION

PALESTINE

Senator COOPER:

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel say whether the Government has yet made any decision to extend diplomatic recognition to the Jewish State of Israel? If not, when can a decision be expected?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I am not in a position to furnish the information sought by the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall make inquiries of the Prime Minister and inform him of the result.

page 1998

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES AND RATIONING

Senator COOPER:

– Following th, meeting of the Labour party caucus this morning, is the Minister for Trade and Customs in a position to make a statement regarding the Government’s intentions in relation to subsidies and rationing?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– A statement of Government policy in connexion with these matters will soon be made.

page 1998

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Hospital Patients

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior give consideration to the proposal that Commonwealth electoral officers bt held responsible for providing facilities for patients in hospitals to vote at federal elections and on referendum question.1instead of continuing the present haphazard system whereby the responsibility is left to political parties, with the result that many persons are deprived of votes?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for the Interior and will supply an answer as soon apossible.

page 1998

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to-

That Standing Order 08 be suspended up u> and including Friday, the 18th June next, to enable new business to be commenced after 10.30 p.m.

page 1998

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th Jun,(vide page 1959), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This measure deals with retirement benefits for members of all branches of the permanent forces. Up to date each of the services has provided retirement benefits, but whilst the Air Force and the Army have been embraced in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, retirement benefits to mem- bers of the naval forces have been provided under a separate scheme and have taken the form of gratuity payments. The existence of two schemes has not been in the best interests of the services as a whole. Indeed, the difference between the retirement benefits provided under the two schemes has to some degree been used by the respective services in bidding for recruits. A uniform system is most desirable. In addition, retirement benefits provided under existing schemes have not been adequate.

I commend the Government upon the introduction of the bill which, I believe, will be welcomed by all honorable senators. There can be no doubt that in the past sufficient consideration has not been given to claims of members of the permanent defence forces in respect of retirement benefits. In war-time members of the defence forces generally are regarded as the saviours of the country, and the government of the day invariably guarantees to them and their dependants the most favorable treatment on their return to civilian life. However, in not only Australia, but also other countries it generally happens that after hostilities have ceased the welfare of the” members of the permanent defence forces is more or less forgotten. That does not mean that the people of Australia are not grateful for the services which our fighting men render in the defence of the country. When war has broken out our people as a whole have responded readily to the call of country; and following both world wars the nation has made generous provision for those disabled through war causes and for the dependants of those who lost their lives in the defence of the country. The liberal provisions embodied in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act is evidence of that fact. The Australian legislation is certainly as generous as any other repatriation act in the world, and is more generous than similar acts in many countries. I point out, however, that those members of the permanent forces who, as a life career, joined the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, have not been treated on such a generous basis as those who, during the war or other period of difficulty, joined the colours for the defence of their country in crucial times.

It was not until recently that cadets at the Duntroon Military College were granted a living allowance. I was indeed glad to hear of the decision under which that living allowance is now being paid to them. Formerly they had to live on pocket money provided by their parents or others who were responsible for sending them to that training college. Apathy, or lack of full understanding of the requirements of the members of our permanent forces in the past is a shortcoming not peculiar to the present Government: previous Australian governments were equally guilty. Under the measure now under discussion, some recognition of the excellent service that these men have given to their country over a number of years will be granted. The permanent forces constitute the nucleus upon which our entire defence organization is built in time of war. In World War II., from that very small force - and it was very small - a defence army of from 800,000 to 1,000,000 men and women was built. Had a small fully trained force of that type not existed, it would have been extremely difficult for us to train, equip, and build up such a fighting machine. It must be remembered that the permanent forces serve their country both in peace-‘ time and during times of war. Obviously such service should be recognized, and provision should be made whereby at the end of their life’s work the members of our defence forces may retire with an assurance, at least, of some comfort during their remaining years. I believe that at the present time, when modern warfare is becoming so technical, and new weapons of destruction are’ being invented almost from day to day, the general qualifications, and especially the educational qualifications, of the members of our permanent defence forces, will have to be of a. higher standard than they were, probably, 25 years ago. It will be necessary to obtain the very best men possible for these services. In their recruiting campaigns the services will have to compete with business organizations and industry generally for the available man-power. The best type of young men will not be attracted to the Permanent Forces unless good careers and reasonable remuneration are offered to them. For that reason the pay, working conditions and amenities of the ser. vices must be made as attractive as possible.

The passage of this measure will mean that the services will be on a uniform basis regarding retirement benefits. This will obviate the possibility of one service competing against another by offering better conditions. The bill provides for a maximum retiring allowance of £845 a year. That rate will be payable only to men who have reached the rank of viceadmiral, lieutenant-general or air marshal. The number of men in this country who will attain those ranks will be small - possibly only one member of each service at any particular time - and whilst £845 a year is not an inconsiderable sum, it compares unfavorably with the retiring allowances of many industrial and business executives. I mention that matter only to emphasize that if we wish to attract to the services the best men offering we must be prepared to compete with other undertakings by paying the best rates. Only in this way will it be possible to hand-pick our service recruits. Warfare in the future will be more technical and more specialized than ever before, and for that reason it will be necessary to obtain the services of intelligent young men. 1 understand that the retiring benefits provided for in this measure are based upon the Public Service superannuation scheme. Undoubtedly, our public servants are a fine body of men and women, many of whom have served their country faithfully since their very early years, but 1. submit that members of our Permanent Forces are on a somewhat different footing. In the first place, more care has to be exercised in their selection. They ave a relatively 3mall body of mcn and in time of war they have to take far greater risks than those normally encountered by the average public servant. Even in peacetime! training in such branches of warfare as flying, and the use of atomic weapons and long-range guided weapons, members of the Permanent Forces are taking daily risks which far exceed those of other members of the community. For that reason, I believe that the Government could have been a little more generous in the drafting of this measure.

The retiring allowances for noncommissioned ranks after twenty years’ ser* vice, range from £95 a year for a private, able seaman, or airman,* to £155 a year for a warrant officer, Class I., or his counterpart of the Navy or Air Force. Admittedly, it is improbable that many men will not have progressed beyond the lowest ranks after twenty years’ service, particularly if intelligent men are selected in the first place, nevertheless, there will be some members of our Permanent Forces who will retire on the minimum rate of £95 a year. On the other hand, taking the commissioned ranks, a lieutenant in the Army or his counterpart in the other forces will receive £300 a year, and a major £450 a year. These allowances are considerably in excess of that payable to a warrant officer, class I. We should not lose sight of the fact that a man who reaches the rank of warrant officer has achieved the highest non-commissioned grading, and has probably served a.3 a member of the Permanent Forces for more than twenty years, making his way up from the lowest rank. In the Army, at least, the man occupying the highest non-commissioned rank has always been regarded as a very valuable soldier; yet, under this measure his retiring allowance will be out of all proportion to that of a lieutenant. It is true that a warrant officer, Class I., may have an opportunity to become a commissioned officer should the establishment of his unit permit, but only in rare, cases would the establishrment be sufficient to allow for his promotion. I draw particular attention to the serious discrepancy between the rates of pension proposed to be paid to warrant officers and lieutenants. Warrant officer is the highest non-commissioned rank, whilst lieutenant is the lowest commissioned rank in the services. The pension provided, for warrant officers is only £155 per annum, whilst that proposed to be paid to lieutenants is £300 per annum. In the event of the death of a member of the armed services, provision is made for payment of a pension to his widow, and my understanding of the measure is that the widow is to receive only half the retiring allowance which would have been paid to her husband. The effect of that provision on the widow of a warrant officer is that she will receive only £77 10s-. a year and an annual allowance of £13, or 5s. a week, for each child under the age of sixteen years. The widow will receive only £90 a year, notwithstanding that her deceased husband, who had attained to the highest non-commissioned rank open to him, may have served for over twenty years. In the course of his secondreading speech, the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) gave examples of the implementation of the proposed scheme. It would appear that in making his calculations of the amount payable to widows he has included payment of some other form of pension. His calculations differ from mine, and I propose to deal with that aspect of the matter during the committee stage.

The allowance of 5s. a week proposed to be paid in respect of children of deceased members of the services is most inadequate, particularly when we realize that widows will receive only half the allowance to which their husbands would have been entitled on retirement. Reduction of the size of a family by reason of the death of the husband would not result in a proportionate diminution of the expense of maintaining the family, particularly when it included two or three children under sixteen years of age. Neither rent nor any of the other expenses incidental to maintaining a home would diminish proportionately, and the only item of expenditure which would diminish would be the amount expended for food. Payment of only 5s. a week for the child nf a deceased member will inevitably impose hardship on most widows.

The provision of a substantia] permanent defence force has been delayed far too long. From the limited information supplied by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) and the Ministers who administer the armed services, it would appear that the Government intends to enlist a permanent force which, including the personnel in the three services, will comprise only 5,000 officers and 40,000 other ranks. Because of the disturbed state of the world to-day, a permanent force of that strength will be quite inadequate for the defence of a country of the size of Australia, and if war occurs a tremendous burden and responsibility will be thrust on the shoulders -of the small body of regular servicemen. Of course, the force of 45,000 personnel which I have mentioned does not even exist at present, but is simply an estimate of our requirements.

Members of the Government should realize that, when the proposed force has been recruited, the promotion open to its members will be seriously limited because of its small numerical strength. Those who wish to attain higher rank will have to wait for their superiors to retire before they can hope to be promoted, with the result that they will not advance from one rank to another for many years. That consideration is directly related to the retirement provisions of this measure, and should be borne in mind in determining the amount of the allowances. Furthermore, officers of the armed forces do not enjoy similar prospects of advancement to those to which members of the Public Service are entitled. Because of the numerical strength of government departments, and the expansion which is taking place in some of them, those officers can look forward to comparatively rapid advancement. The Government estimates that the payment of pensions and other benefits entailed in this measure will amount to £2,000,000 annually in fifteen years’ time, so that I assume that during the next ten years the drain on the financial resources of the country will be comparatively small. The Government proposes to expend £250,000,000 on defence during the next five years-, and an annual commitment of £2,000,000 cannot be regarded as anything more than a fraction of the amount involved in the defence programme. Moreover, the officers of the Permanent Forces will have a great deal to do with the expenditure of that large sum of money, and I urge upon the Government the desirability of securing the services of the best men available by offering them reasonably generous treatment. The Government should consider making provision for retiring allowances in the defence appropriations for the next few years. I am sure that this would encourage the best type of individual to join the services. Many young men are even now considering service with the forces as a career. In the past, such service has been regarded merely as aD opportunity for travel or adventure, and young men have joined the Navy, the Army or the Air Force on that account only. Doubtless many honorable senators have received letters from such members of the armed services who have become dissatisfied and want to be discharged. In my opinion, a man who has served for ten years in a branch of the fighting forces is more valuable, if he is of good character, than a new recruit. In the interests of the efficiency of the services it would be better to persuade such men to re-enlist than allow them to leave and to recruit young men for short periods. The guarantee of future security would induce many young men to regard service in the defence forces in the light of a profession offering attractions at least equal to those of many civilian occupations. The first essential. of an effective defence force is a strong core of welltrained and contented personnel. In order to create this standard, it is necessary to offer attractive rates of pay and allowances and good conditions, together with the promise of generous retirement benefits. The Government has gone a long way in the right direction by introducing this bill, but it could obtain even better results by being more generous in respect of allowances for widows and dependent children and retirement benefits generally.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I support this bill, which provides for the payment of retirement benefits to members of the permanent defence forces of the Commonwealth, and I congratulate the Government on having introduced it. It is a long overdue measure. It will co-ordinate the retirement schemes and superannuation provisions of the three armed services and -place them all on an equal footing. It will remove from the minds of men who have joined the services the fear that they will suffer the fate of large numbers of others who served in the permanent forces after World War I. When the depression occurred and defence appropriations were drastically reduced, many members of the permanent forces were thrown out on the world, although some of them had served virtually a life-time in the forces and had acquired specialized training which did not fit them for any civil occupation.

Some of the men who worked with me for a shipping company had held the rank of Lieutenant-Commander in the Royal Australian Navy. They had served for nearly twenty years at sea but they did not have certificates qualifying them to take ships to sea or to sign on as mates, because their naval training had been specialized. That shipping company also employed watchmen who had been members of the Australian Instructional Corps in the permanent military forces. Those men had to take such employment because they were master gunners, and nobody wanted master gunners in peacetime. This bill will provide some measure of security for men like that. I should like to see even wider provisions in the bill for the “welfare of members of the permanent forces. For instance, I see no reason why the Royal Military College at Duntroon should not confer on its graduates a degree of military engineering equivalent to a degree of civil engineering so that men holding the degree could be seconded for public works of national importance which this Government has in contemplation. They could serve on those undertakings for three or four years and then, when required, return to the permanent, army to perform the duties for which their training was primarily designed. A similar arrangement could be brought into operation for the employment of specialists in the Signal Corps. They could be seconded to the Postal Department and trained so that they could serve as technical experts either in war or in peace. I also see no reason why graduates of Flinders Naval College, after serving for a period at sea, should not be granted the equivalent of a Board of Trade ticket so that they could continue to serve at sea in the merchant navy.

The provisions . of this bill contemplate the retirement of members of the services after a period of twenty years if they so desire. A man who join.* the Navy, Army or Air Force at the age of eighteen years is still comparatively young if he leaves the service at. the age of 38 years. Therefore, it would be wise to bring into operation a plan to co-ordinate the specialized knowledge of such men with the needs of the civil community. My only criticism of the bill relates to the great disparity between the provision made in it for warrant officers and that made for commissioned officers. Cn this respect, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper). The bill provides for retiring allowances of £155 per annum for chief petty officers and £300 per annum for naval lieutenants. A chief petty officer or chief engine-room artificer has the knowledge which would enable him. to supervise a power house capable of supplying a community of about 10,000 persons. A master gunner in the Royal Australian Artillery also has a special knowledge of surveying and trigonometry which would almost qualify him as a first-class surveyor. A master pilot in the Air Force could be invaluable in commercial aviation. Warrant officers are not necessarily one whit less able or experienced than commissioned officers. It was said during the war that the Staff Corps was the brains of the Army. It was also said, and with equal truth, that the Australian Instructional Corps and the permanent soldiers were the backbone of the Army. Therefore, I should like to see more attention paid to the remuneration of non-commissioned officers. We must realize that a man in uniform is still a part of the community and not apart from it. Therefore, we should make provision for rates of pay and conditions of service which would make life in the armed services attractive. We are gradually adopting the view that comforts provided in barracks and on service for members of the defence forces in peace-time should approximate those available in the home. That must be our approach to this matter if we are to build up our defence forces and overcome the lag in recruiting. At present more jobs are available than we have man-power to fill, and any man with some skill or knowledge of a trade can quite easily secure well-paid employment. 1 am afraid that the defence authorities have not paid sufficient attention to that aspect of competition for man-power. The measure goes a long way towards evening up the balance so far as members of the permanent forces are concerned, but I repeat that it does not provide adequate retirement benefits to noncommissioned officers. I support the bill.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– When this measure was debated in the House of Representatives considerable discussion took place on its details. I propose to concentrate on its basic principles, and to raise certain points upon which I and many people in the community would like to be enlightened. First, I should like to know just what is a “ unit “. Although the list of terms defined in clause 4 is somewhat lengthy no definition is given of “ unit “. The task of interpreting the various provisions of the measure would be facilitated by providing a definition of “ unit “.

As to the larger issues, the benefits to be provided to the rank and file of the services are not generous or attractive. For example, a man who joins the services at the age of 25 years, if he is a tradesman, is paid £1 a day, and so far as I am able to ascertain, he would be obliged to subscribe for seven units. According to the second schedule, the cost involved would be at the rate of 4s. 6d. a unit in respect of the first two units, and at the rate of 2s. 2d. a unit for five units or 10s. lOd. a fortnight, making a total contribution of 15s. 4d. a fortnight, or 7s. Sd. a week. That is a very high rate of contribution to expect from a man receiving a wage of £7 a week. What is he to receive in return for that contribution? After twenty years of service he will receive exactly £110 per annum. The catch in this provision, of course, is the age pension, because that payment of £110 will relieve the Government of paying the full age pension to the recipient and his wife when they become eligible to receive it. This benefit is just high enough to disqualify the recipient for a full age pension. In these circumstances, one is entitled to look somewhat askance at the Government’s contribution. Admittedly, in the case of a man who joins the services at the age of 25 years, the benefit will commence to accrue when he reaches the age of 45 years. Thus he would receive that benefit for twenty years before he would be entitled to the age pension. However, a proportion of that benefit would merely represent ‘repayment of his own contribution. In order to view the proposed benefits in their true perspective, one must consider them in relation to loss of age pension rights. Considering the age pension at its present rate in conjunction with the means test, the only good feature about the proposed benefit for the rank and file of the services is that the benefit will commence on completion of twenty years of service. After the recipient reaches the age of 65 years the benefit is of very little value.

In this matter we must also have regard to the possibility of inflation and its effect on fixed money incomes. If the danger of rising prices and inflation is as real as recent remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) would lead us to believe, the real value of the benefits to be provided under this measure will be much less than has been expected. The measure limits the power of investment of the funds to certain classes of security all of which appear to be what economists call “ money rights “. Consequently, should inflation occur, there is little chance of these investments increasing in value; on the contrary, they may depreciate considerably. When a man is contributing a percentage of his earnings to a fund of this kind, his ability to save and invest in physical assets is limited. In order to offset to some degree the danger of inflation, the scope of investment of the fund should he widened to permit it to be used to finance (members “home purchases “ and to help in the purchase of furniture and other physical assets on easy terms of repayment. Generally, every opportunity should be afforded to the board to safeguard the interests of contributors so that the fund will really become a source of permanent benefit. Otherwise, the benefit may prove to be merely a money gesture whose value is likely to ‘be disturbed by possible inflation. We should not assume thai Mie purchasing power of money will remain stable. In fact, the Prime Minister has given exactly this warning and if contributions are to be accumulated in a fund whose investment is limited so narrowly as is proposed under the bill, contributors may be greatly disappointed when the time comes for them to collect their benefits. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister for Shipping and

Fuel (Senator Ashley) has to say in reply to the points I have raised.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– - I commend the spirit of the bill. If we are to show due appreciation of the services rendered by members of the defence forces, the least we can do is to offer some reasonable inducement to members of the permanent forces to remain in the services and some reasonable compensation to them at the end of their period of service. I am sure that had the members of the fighting forces been treated more generously at the conclusion of the recent war, many men who gave distinguished service, particularly in the Air Force, would have joined the permanent forces. This comparatively generous measure of pensions will attract the finest of our young people to the various branches of the armed services as a profession. I offer one suggestion, namely, that acting, or temporary, rank should be abolished. In time of war, when establishments must be extended beyond permanent limits, the provision of temporary or acting rank is indispensable. However, in the composition of permanent forces, the whole set-up of which can be envisaged, there is no reason to retain acting, or temporary, rank. The measure contemplates a continuation of that practice; and it is conceivable that a man who prior to retirement may have the acting, or temporary, rank of squadron leader, or even group captain, will have to revert to the substantive rank of flying officer. That is unfortunate, and, I submit, it is unnecessary in a permanent force. I hope that the persons who are to benefit under this measure will not themselves be obliged to interpret it, because I myself find it most difficult to interpret many of its provisions.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I support this bill, and commend the Government for bringing it forward, because I believe that some encouragement must be offered if we are to get the right men into the permanent forces. The recruiting campaign for the permanent forces has not so far been very successful, because of the absence of such encouragement. Under this bill provision is made for reasonable security on retirement, somewhat similar to that enjoyed by railway employees and those in other Government deepartments. Men will now join the services in the knowledge that they will have security. Previously they did not have it. With this measure

On the statute-book I am sure certain men - not the ordinary “ foot-slogger “ or private, but those who worked in technical units during the war - will join the permanent forces and be an asset to them. Previously such men went back to the sections of industry in which they were previously employed. Following the passing of this bill, I have no doubt that the recruiting campaign will be stepped up, and that the right type of men will be attracted to the permanent forces. I am very pleased indeed that the Opposition supports this bill, and the Government is to be congratulated on its introduction.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I should like to add my support to this bill, and to commend the Government for introducing it. Such a measure is long overdue. All honorable senators who have spoken have been in unison regarding the desirability of providing retiring benefits for members of the permanent forces, but [ state the position as I see it, regarding entrance to any of the armed forces. As indicated by the Minister when introducing the bill, its main purpose is to provide uniformity of retiring benefits for each of the three services, and to follow, as far as practicable, the provision of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme for public servants. The matter of provision of reasonable compensation at the earlier age at which members of the armed services shall retire, is, I think, a point on which honorable senators may entertain some doubt as to the ultimate benefit the participants under this scheme will derive. Senator Rankin rightly drew attention to the amount which will be paid to lower ranking members of the various forces on retirement. I think the inducement will be such that there will be a better type of entrant attracted to the permanent forces, and it is only reasonable to expect that within a year or two, by their application to the duties required of them, and because of the inducements now extended by this Government, very few members of the permanent forces will not have progressed beyond their rank on joining. We may also expect that there will be an increased number of applications from men who wish to enter the permanent forces as a career. I feel sure this measure will receive the approbation of all sections of the community.

The remarks of Senator O’sullivan relating to the interpretation of the bill remind me of my own experience when a superannuation scheme was introduced in a State department in South Australia, with which I was associated. When the scheme was brought to the notice of the employees who were called upon to contribute under it, I recall that grave doubts existed in their minds as to the meaning of various provisions, but as time went on they found that it would be an asset to them, and I feel sure that similar difficulties will be encountered in connexion with this measure. When such a distinguished legal luminary as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) confesses that he found difficulty in understanding the provisions of the bill, I think it will only be on individual application that the provisions will become clear. However. I view with no great concern the hardships and difficulties that have been enumerated by various honorable senators. I agree that there is a disparity in the matter of view with no great concern the hardships rates of benefits. In respect of the noncommissioned officers and privates, the annual pension to be provided after twenty years’ service will be £95 a year. If, on the other hand, he had had 30 years’ service, his pension would be increased to £155. Of course, it would be very unusual after the expiry of 20 or 30 years’ service for a man to be still on the lowest rank. Because of the added inducement and generous conditions contained in this bill, a better and more conscientious type of applicant should be attracted to the armed forces - persons who will make one section of the forces their career. I make bold to say that applicants who have been associated for many years with the armed forces will advance to the higher scales. I commend the Government for having introduced this measure.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I have pleasure in adding a few words of commendation of the Government for introducing this bill, which is long overdue. The members of the defence forces have been one part of the social structure which has not hitherto received the benefits of a superannuation scheme. Many of them have given many years’ service to their country, and should receive adequate allowances on retirement. We have been informed that one of the purposes of this measure is to encourage the enlistment of better types of men. Whilst I realize that the measure looks to the future in this regard, I believe that we should pay a tribute to those members of our permanent forces who, for many years, have played an important part in the defence of Australia. .Although I hope that the passing of this measure will attract our best young men to the forces, I trust also that the Government will not forget the older men who are now completing their long service to this country. As some of these men hold only acting rank, I ask the Minister to consider the confirmation of the rank of all those members of the forces who have more than 30 years’ service and have held acting rank for at least three years. That would make a substantial difference to their retiring allowances. Men who have carried out the duties associated with their acting rank to the satisfaction of everybody for at least three years should .not be penalized by having to accept a lower retiring allowance. Promotions were retarded during the depression because of retrenchments, and this seriously prejudiced the careers of many young men who, in other circumstances, would now be enjoying permanent promotion to the ranks in which they are now acting.’ If men have been carrying out the duties of their acting ranks satisfactorily for a number of years, I see no reason why they should not have the benefit of the retiring allowance applicable to those ranks. 1 trust that the bill will meet the requirements for which it is designed.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– This bill is a step in the right direction. It establishes a scheme foi which there has been a demand for a long time. 1 can see anomalies in it, but they can be eliminated as the operation of the measure is observed. There is one matter on which I should like some information. Clause 5 provides for the constitution of a Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board, consisting of the president of the Superannuation Board, constituted by the Superannuation Act 1922- 194S; the Commonwealth Actuary: a person to represent the Treasury ; a person to represent the Permanent Naval Forces : a person to represent the Permanent Military Forces; and a person to represent the Permanent Air Force. I should like to know how the representatives of the Permanent Forces are to be selected, and to what degree the contributors to the fund to he established will be represented in these appointments. I should also like to know when the Government proposes that an actuarial review of the scheme shall be made with a view to improving pensions, particularly those of widows with children, and orphans. Under the bill as it now stands the pension payable in respect of an orphan child is as low as £26 a year. While fighting for pensions in Western Australia, my contention was that where a child had lost ‘both parents, and the other terms of the act had been complied with, the pension should be made available to a nominated best friend of the child. I am not being critical of this measure. I know the attitude of Labour towards pensions, and I know what Labour has accomplished. The bill fulfils a long-felt need.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– in reply - I appreciate the reception that has been given to the bill by honorable senators, particularly members of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) claimed, however, that the Government might have been a little more generous when drawing up the pension scales. I believe that the scales are adequate. They are more generous than those applying to the Public Service because the Commonwealth’s contribution is considerably greater. To those members of the Opposition who would criticize the measure, I point out that whilst the parties of which they are members governed this country, no attempt was made to introduce a scheme such as this. In those days, the only members of the permanent forces who enjoyed retiring benefits were Army officers and some officers of the Royal Australian Air Force. This proposal is in keeping with the Government’s desire to safeguard the interests of all sections of the community.

The Leader of the Opposition also claimed that the estimated annual cost of this scheme, namely, £2,000,000, was very small compared with the £250,000,000 provided for defence expenditure over a period of five years, but I point out that that figure represents over-all expenditure on defence and that the actual expenditure in respect of the three services will be very much less.

There has been some criticism of the measure on the ground that the pensions provided for non-commissioned ranks are small. I remind the Senate that in most cases these men will be retiring in the prime of life, at say 40 years of age. Many of them will have received specialized training in the- services, and will be able to continue their vocations when they resume civilian life. Take for instance an engineer in the Royal Australian Navy. Upon retirement from the Navy, he should not have any difficulty in obtaining a job ashore, particularly in prosperous times such as the present, although I do not pretend that jobs will be so readily available in depression periods. Similarly, men employed in service catering establishments will find wide scope for similar activities in civilian life. I know quite a number of such men who have engaged very successfully in the restaurant business. The point that I emphasize is that a noncommissioned officer, or a serviceman of lower rank, will retire at a comparatively early age, and for the rest of his life will draw a pension ranging from £95 a year in the case of a private, to £155 a year in the case of a warrant officer. In addition, he will be able to work for many years. He cannot be compared with an aged person who draws a pension after his life’s work has been done.

There has been criticism of the disparity between the pensions payable to commissioned officers and those prescribed for other ranks. The point that should not be overlooked is that pensions are increased by £8 a year for each additional year’s service, so that if, for instance, a non-commissioned officer who is entitled to a pension of £155 at 40 years of age continues in the Navy until he is 55 years of age, he will be eligible for a pension of £275 a year. Commissioned officers, of course, are called upon to make substantially greater contributions to the superannuation fund than other ranks.

Senator Rankin sought a definition of the word “ unit “ - a term generally used in connexion with superannuation schemes. I am informed by officers of the department concerned that in this scheme a unit represents a pension of £32 10s. a year at the age of 60 years. Senator O’sullivan and Senator Tangney urged that temporary or acting ranks be confirmed upon retirement. That of course is a matter for the services themselves. If the services decide to adopt this practice as a matter of policy, their members would enjoy higher pensions.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the pension payable to a woman whose husband has been killed in the services. In my second-reading speech I made the following comment on this matter: -

It is important to point out that the pension scale shown in the third schedule relates only to pension on retirement. If a member dies while a member of the forces, the pension payable to his widow’ is one-half of the pension for which he was contributing at age 00, plus an allowance for each child under sixteen years of age. In order to amplify this statement the case of a flight-lieutenant with’ over four years’ service in that rank may be quoted. The pension for retirement in that rank is £275 per annum. The widow’s pension would be half that amount, namely £137 10s. But if that flight-lieutenant was killed or died during his service, his widow would receive a pension of £243 15s. per annum, plus an allowance for each child under sixteen years of age.

If there 13 any further information that honorable senators require I shall be pleased to furnish it when the bill is in the committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 10 - by leave - considered together.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- “ Rank “ is defined in clause 4 as follows : - “ Rank “ in relation to a member of the Permanent Naval Forces, means confirmed rank and, in relation to a member of the Permanent Military Forces or Permanent Air Force, means substantive rank;

I disagree with the opinion expressed by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) during the secondreading debate that the determination by the Parliament of pensions in accordance with the actual rank held by a member of the services at the time of his death or retirement would impinge on the province of the armed services. Whilst it is the duty of the staffs of the services to advise the Government on such matters, the Parliament, and not the services, is responsible for making such decisions. Any member of the permanent forces who has held acting or temporary rank for any considerable period should be properly compensated on his retirement. Members of the Royal Australian Navy are paid special rates while they are acting in positions of higher rank, and members of the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force are paid special allowances in respect of temporary rank. However, no allowance in respect of acting rank is paid in the last-mentioned services. As Senator O’sullivan pointed out, because of the small establishment provided for the regular services, there will be’ numerous instances of members acting in positions higher than their substantive rank. Honorable senators who have had service in the armed forces will realize that members of the services who possess special abilities, experience or aptitude are often seconded for duties which normally carry higher rank. That practice will inevitably increase because of the need for personnel with special qualifications tc solve the scientific and technical problems presented by modern methods of warfare. Because of the small establishments provided for the services members who are seconded for special duties may occupy higher rank for periods as long as ten or fifteen years, but if they die or retire at the end of that time the pension payable to them or their dependants will be based on their substantive rank, and will be considerably less than that to which they would otherwise be entitled. I consider that that provision is most unfair and a clause should be inserted in the bill to provide that a member who has held temporary rank for a stipulated period shall be eligible for payment of a retirement allowance appropriate to the higher rank in which he has acted. 1 ask the Government to reconsider this matter, not from the point of view of service regulations, but from the point of view of fair and sympathetic treatment of men who give of their best to then country.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– As I intimated during my speech in reply to the second reading debate, the determination of ranks in the services and allocation of personnel is decided by the services themselves, and I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) could have been serious when he suggested that the Parliament should intervene.

Senator COOPER:

– I did not suggest that the Parliament should interfere in such matters.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Leader of the Opposition advocated that the Parliament should amend this measure to provide that members of the services who act in ranks higher than their substantive ranks shall be entitled to payment of a higher pension than that to which they will be entitled under the bill as drafted. I point out to him that the Parliament cannot interfere in such a matter, because by doing so it would be dictating to the services on matters which are already reserved for their decision by the Defence Act. I can imagine the criticism that would be directed at members of the Parliament and the Government if they attempted to interfere with the services in that way. Furthermore, I point out that the contributions of members of the services to the fund are based on their substantive ranks. For those reasons the Government does not intend to alter the present provision in regard to the payment of pensions to members of the service acting in higher rank at the time of their death or retirement.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition” · Queensland

– - I appreciate the reply made by the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley), but it is obvious that he has either intentionally misunderstood my remarks or is too obtuse to comprehend my proposal. This measure was introduced in order to provide for the payment of retiring allowances to members of the armed services, and although I maintain that the Parliament is the appropriate body to determine such a matter, I certainly did not suggest that it should interfere in .the administration of the services by awarding promotions or conferring special benefits on individuals. I urged that the Parliament should exercise some control over the principle of the payment of retirement allowances because, after all, it is the Parliament which has to provide the necessary funds from public money. I propose that the committee should insert in this measure a provision to the effect that a -member of the services who acts in a rank higher than his substantive rank in a temporary capacity for a certain number of years shall be entitled to the payment of a more appropriate retirement allowance. By inserting such a provision, the Parliament would do no more than extend recognition to men who have rendered special service to their .country. The small establishments which are to be provided for the regular services will deprive many members of the permanent forces of rank to which their special services entitle them, and it is the duty of the Parliament to remedy such a defect. The Minister said that because members of the services -contribute to the pension fund according to the substantive rank which they hold it would be impracticable to accede to my suggestion. However, the difficulty presented by the scale of contributions is by no means insurmountable. The proposal which I have outlined should be referred to the staffs of the services, who could make recommendations as to the period which a member should serve in a higher rank in order to become entitled to contribute for, and to receive, a higher retiring allowance. But the principle involved is a matter for determination by the Parliament. I resent the suggestion made by the Minister that I was seeking to interfere in the administration of the services; all I am asking is that a member who has carried out an important job in a higher rank should be given some compensation in the form of a more appropriate scale of retiring allowance.

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales - Minister for .Shipping and Fuel) 4.43] . - I did not seek to mislead the Senate in regard to anything which .the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) said; I assumed that the language which he used correctly represented his views. I still maintain that the proposal advanced by the honorable senator would result in actual interference in the administration of the services, because whilst the Parliament would not actually confirm a member m an acting rank, it would require that special benefits fee conferred on certain individuals. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are not in a position to decide whether individuals who have acted temporarily in higher rank? are entitled to preferential treatment. We do not know what special capacity, seniority or other merits they possess.

Senator Cooper:

– Because of the small establishments provided there will be many instances in which deserving members will not be confirmed in the higher ranks in which they have acted.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I cannot accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I regret that he formed the impression that I sought to misconstrue his remarks. I repeat that the adoption of his suggestion would automatically confer substantive rank on all members who had acted in a higher rank for any length of time regardless of other considerations.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Clause 5 provides that the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board shall consist of certain members, including a representative each of the Permanent Naval Forces, the Permanent Military Forces, and the Permanent Air Force. Can the Minister inform me how these persons will be selected? On whose recommendations will the appointments be made? Will the members contributing to the fund have any rights in connexion with the selection of such persons?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– The composition of the board has been agreed to by the three services. The President of the Superannuation Board and the Commonwealth Actuary will be members ex officio. Other members will be appointed by the Governor-General.

Senator Cooke:

– On whose recommendations will the appointments be made? Will the recommendations come from “ brass hats “ or from persons directly in touch with the contributors?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The appointments will be made on the recommendations of the service boards.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 30 - by leave - considered together.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland:

– Clause 28 (2) states that the daily rate of pay of a member shall include, amongst other amounts, the sum of 5s. Will the Minister explain why that amount is to be added to the daily rate of pay?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– The daily rates of pay of members are laid down in the post-war pay code. To these rates is to be added an amount of 5s. a day for services provided in kindrations, quarters and clothing. The figure of 5s. will apply to all ranks, whether married or single. It has been accepted by the three services as a reasonable figure readily applicable to pay rates. In the

Navy there will also be certain allowances, such as badge-pay and good conduct pay. The building up of the allowance for the purpose of contribution will not benefit the member, except in the case of death or invalidity, as contributions have no actual relationship to pensions, which will be based on ranks.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Clause 29 provides for a reduction of benefits in the event of a reduction in rank of a member. In the event of such a reduction, the rate of pension will be reduced to conform with the scale provided for the reduced rank. I am concerned about the effect of this provision on a man who, for example, having served for eighteen or nineteen years, is reduced in rank by one or two steps by court-martial. I presume that, although be might have been contributing at the rate applicable to his former rank for a long period, he would receive, upon retirement, only the rate of benefit prescribed for the rank to which he had been reduced. If so, will such a member be entitled to any refund of contributions paid on the higher scale prior to his reduction in rank, or will he lose the amount, of such contributions and still retire at the lower rate of allowance? This appears to be a very arbitrary provision. A member might be reduced in status through no fault of his own. Will there be any right of appeal against any reduction that would affect the rate of retirement allowance ?

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– Will the Minister also state whether any consideration has been given to the very distinct possibility that a member of the services will be reduced in rank for other than disciplinary reasons? Circumstances might arise in which members of the forces would be temporarily reduced in rank or status and re-instated later. There i.« no provision in clause 29 or any subsequent clause to overcome the anomaly which would exist during the period of the temporary reduction.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister’ for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– Clause 29 is designed to provide that a member shall not be required to make contributions upon a scale higher than is necessitated by his daily rate of pay. If disrated, a member will make contributions according to the lower rate of pay and will forfeit such contributions as he has made on the higher scale. He will have the right of appeal to the appropriate service board against any reduction in rank. I am not clear about the import of Senator Critchley’s question.

Senator Critchley:

– Should a member be reduced in rank or status for other than disciplinary reasons, is provision made for adjustments to his contributions and benefits upon return to his former rank ?

Senator ASHLEY:

– If a member of the services is reduced in that way and subsequently returns to his former rank, he will then enjoy the benefits of the higher rank. However, during the period of reduced status, he will pay contributions at the rate applicable to the lower rank.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 40 - by leave - considered together.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Clause 32, which provides for the calculation of contributions by the Commonwealth, contains an algebraic formula. Can the Minister explain the basis of the formula ?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– This clause sets out the manner in which the Commonwealth shall make payments to the fund. The procedure adopted in relation to the Superannuation Fund, namely, payment of 60 per cent, of the cost of pensions, would be unsuitable for the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. On the average, because of early retirement, the Commonwealth will have to pay much more than 60 per cent, of the cost of benefits. However, because of the impossibility of forecasting retirement rates accurately, the average percentage cannot be determined beforehand. This difficulty has been overcome by the Commonwealth undertaking to meet the deficiency between the value of benefits payable and the accumulated value of members’ contributions. In the case of lump sum payments, such as a refund of contributions plus a gratuity, the Commonwealth will meet this liability when the claim arises. In the event of a claim to pension, the Commonwealth will pay the portion of each fortnightly payment of pension which is not provided for by the pensioner’s own contributions.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 50 - by leave - considered together.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Clause 50 deals with service on reserve. Evidently, a3 a qualification for pension, a member must agree, upon retirement, to serve for a certain period on the appropriate reserve. It appears that unless a member agrees to sign up for service on the reserve of the armed force to which he ha9 been attached, the full rate of retirement allowance will not be paid to him. Is that the intention of this clause?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– This clause provides that if any member, on retirement, is required to serve on the reserve and does not agree to do so, his rate of pension shall be two and one half times the actuarial equivalent of the contributions made by him. The amount would be substantially less than the heavily subsidized pension provided for in the third or fifth schedule. However, where an officer is not required by the service board to serve on the reserve, the rate of pension shall be as shown in the third or fifth schedule. If an officer agrees to serve on reserve and is pensioned accordingly but subsequently withdraws his agreement, his rate of pension shall be two and one half times the actuarial equivalent of the contributions made by him.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– As service on the reserve is related to payment of retirement benefits, is there any provision in the bill to define the nature of duties on the reserve?

Senator Ashley:

– It would be very difficult to prescribe his duties, because that is a matter for the particular service concerned.

Clauses agreed fo.

Clauses 51 to 60- -bv leave - considered together.

Senator COOPER:
Leader 6f the Opposition · Queensland

.’-Clause 51 deals with the classification of percentage of incapacity. The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley), in his second-reading speech, said -

Special provision is also made for members who are retired from the forces due to incapacity. Wor example, a member whose percentage of total incapacity in relation to civil employment is 60 per cent, or over would receive a pension of £32 10s. per annum in respect of each unit for which he was contributing. In respect of the flight lieutenant mentioned above, this would amount to a pension of £487 10s. per annum.

In the schedule, a flight lieutenant’s retirement pension is fixed at £275 per annum. Is the difference between that amount and the sum of £4S7 10s. provided as a pension for incapacity ?

Senator ASHLEY (New South Wales - Minister for Shipping and Fuel) 5.2]. - In the Commonwealth Publicervice, ail officer i3 not retired because of invalidity unless his percentage of invalidity approximates 100 per cent., and, in those circumstances, he is entitled to the full pension for which he has contributed. A member of the forces: however, may be retired because of a minor physical defect. At present, members of the Permanent Forces who contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, if retired because of invalidity, are eligible for pension on the basis of (a) the pension contributed, for at age 60, and (&) the degree of invalidity as determined by the Superannuation Board. If he is retired at 45 years of age he would receive the pension for which he was eligible at age 60. This system led to some dissatisfaction in the p&st when the Superannuation Board assessed the degree of invalidity at a rate lower than that determined by the service. In order to obviate this defect, it is now proposed that invalids be classified in three broad classes, and that equitable benefits be provided for each of those classes. The pension set out in the third schedule is for retirement at ugo for rank; it does not apply in respect of invalidity. A flight lieutenant contributing for fifteen units for benefit at the rate of £32 10s. a unit at age 60, if he were 60 per cent, incapacitated, would receive his full pension, that is fifteen times £32 10s.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– In respect of twenty years’ service, a flight lieutenant would receive a pension of £275. If he retired on rank at age 60 would he receive £487 ?

Senator Ashley:

– That is so.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

. -‘Paragraph b of subclause 1 of clause 55 provides that on the death before retirement of a married member who is a contributor, pension shall be paid to his widow “ in respect of each of her, or the member’s, children (except children of her re-marriage) who are under the age of sixteen years - a pension at the rate of £13 per annum “. I urge that the age of eligibility of children for this purpose be raised from sixteen years to eighteen years, because the two intervening years are very critical not only in the life of the child but also from the point of view of dependency. Liberalization of this provision in that way would be of great assistance to dependants of service personnel.

Senator COOPER:
Leader Of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley), in his second-reading speech, stated - the case of a Bight lieutenant with over four years’ service in that rank may be quoted. The pension for retirement on that rank is £275 per annum. The widow’s pension would be half that amount, namely £137 10s. But if that flight lieutenant was killed oi” died during his service, his widow would receive a pension of £243 los. per annum, plus an allowance for each child under sixteen 3’ears of age.

Does the explanation of the difference between the member’s retiring pension and that paid to his widow correspond with the explanation given by the Minister on the point I raised a few minutes ago?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– Provision is made for the widow of a member who dies during service to receive. the same rate of pension as would be paid under the Superannuation Act to the widow of an employee on an equivalent rate of pay.

In reply to Senator Rankin, I point out that the provision in respect of the age of children is in conformity with that in the Superannuation Act. In addition, child endowment would be paid in respect of children under the age of sixteen years.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 61 to 87 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read third time.

page 2013

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 15th June (vide page 1961), on motion by Senator COURTICE -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Although the agreement embodied in the measure is now submitted to the Parliament for ratification, it is clear that it has been signed on behalf of Australia and, having regard to the Government’s majority, will be ratified. The Government will not entertain any amendment which the Opposition may propose. However, we are justified in criticizing certain aspects of the agreement. First, I understand that it was made without prior consultation with the wheat-growers through any of their organizations in any of the States or the Wheat Growers Federation which represents the growers of Australia as a whole. I understand that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) intimated to Mr. Evans, the president of the federation, that the agreement would be ratified regardless of any representations that might be made on behalf of the growers. The Opposition agrees that it is of advantage to not only the growers but also the nation as a whole to evolve orderly marketing of primary products. Wheat-growers have experienced many ups and downs with high and low prices alternating at various periods. We contend that the growers themselves should exercise some control in the disposal of their product. The growers should have some say in the fixation of the price at which it will be sold, but this agreement commits them to sell their wheat for the next five years at a price which has been fixed, virtually, by the Minister himself. Many commodity boards have been set up by the Government and its predecessors. The policy of the Opposition parties is to give majority representation on such boards to the growers concerned, because the growers are best equipped to handle the disposal of primary products. However, the Government has invariably given the final say in such matters to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. He can veto the decisions of commodity boards if he wishes ‘to give effect to his own ideas. That has been done in regard to this International Wheat Agreement. Organizations of wheat-growers, especially the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, were not consulted in any way in regard to this agreement that has been entered into for the sale of portion of the Australian wheat harvest for the next five years. The Minister seems to have ignored, entirely, any experienced advice and assistance which would have been given to him willingly had he consulted the organization before making this agreement.

In looking back on past measures introduced by the Australian Labour party, it would appear that the whole approach to (his matter savours very much of socialization of the wheat industry. The Minister may have some good reason to offer why the representatives of the industry were not consulted in any way, but it cannot be denied that the general community, and particularly the wheatgrowers themselves, were ignored and that the agreement was made over their heads. The Opposition favours co-operation in industry and co-operative marketing, but our main contention is that the grower is entitled to the proceeds from the sale of his product, less, of course, marketing fees’ and other costs which may be incurred in effecting the sale. He is at least entitled to expect a reasonable price after the costs of selling have been deducted. In this instance, the Minister has not only entered into a contract covering a five-year period at prices which compare unfavorably with present world prices, but also has cancelled existing contracts, and, in so doing, has sold wheat at lower prices, to the disadvantage of the wheat-growers. That was done without their authority.

Article XVII. of the International Wheat Agreement reads -

So long as this Agreement remains in force, it shall prevail over any provisions inconsistent therewith which may be contained in any other agreement previously concluded between any of the contracting Governments, provided that should any two contracting Governments be parties to an agreement, entered into prior to 1st March, .1947, for the purchase and sale, of wheat, the Governments concerned hall supply full particulars of transactions under such agreement so that the quantities, irrespective of prices involved, shall be recorded in the register of transactions maintained by the Council in accordance with the provisions of Article III. and so count toward the fulfilment of obligations of importing countries and obligations of exporting countries.

That deals with the amount of wheat that has been supplied, and cancels agreements that have been in force. This agreement definitely cancels previous agreements made with the United Kingdom for the sale of wheat at 17s. a bushel, and with India, at 18s. 6d. a bushel; those contracts were made when the world parity price of wheat was about 20s. 6d. a bushel.

I have nothing to say against giving assistance to Great Britain and other countries, but I remind the Minister that a certain amount of wheat was sold under contract with our sister dominion, New Zealand, at 5s. 9d. a bushel. I ask that the Minister, in his reply, to inform the Senate whether Article XVII. of this agreement also cancels the agreement with New Zealand for payment of 5s. 9d. a bushel, and whether New Zealand will now comb under this International Wheat Agreement and have to pay the higher price.

Senator Grant:

– That would bt repudiation !

Senator COOPER:

– The Minister has already repudiated two contracts which were in the growers’ favour, and is prepared to let go at a lower level one that is not in their favour. However, f believe that the people of Australia are quite prepared, and in fact anxious, to give all the assistance they can to Great Britain. I believe they are prepared to assist in the rehabilitation of the devastated countries of Europe, by providing grain and food. It is not suggested in any way that large profits should be made out of the destitution and difficulties of other nations. Th,Government has no right to expect one section of the community to bear the full burden of the assistance which Australia is prepared to give to Great Britain and other countries under this wheat agreement. I maintain, and I think other honorable senators will at least agree with me in this respect, that the feeding of the starving peoples of Europe, and of out own kith and kin in Great Britain, and the supplying of food to other peoples of the world who are in short supply, is a national problem.

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– Great Britain does not think there is much generosity about this.

Senator COOPER:

– It is a national problem for us to assist the Mother Country; one section of the community should not be expected to shoulder the whole burden. I can visualize what the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) would have to say if those engaged in the sugar industry were called upon to supply sugar at a very much lower price. Doubtless the Minister will admit that this is an agreement entered into purely on the assumption that the value of wheat will fall over the next few years. T wish to point out where this agreement is not at all watertight. It does not provide for a fall in the price of wheat, in which event the prices set out in this agreement could not be obtained. Whilst the people of Australia realize their responsibilities to the destitute countries of the world, one section only of the community should not be expected to bear the full cost of the practical expression of sympathy and humane feeling. It is a national responsibility, and, therefore, the nation should pay the difference between the world’s market prices and the prices specified in that agreement.

Senator Nash:

– Does the honorable senator believe in free enterprise?

Senator COOPER:

– Very much so! The honorable senator however, implies complete socialization of the wheat industry when he advocates that the Government should take over the product of that industry and sell it at whatever price it thinks fit, not what the grower could get by selling in the open markets of the world. There is no government assistance in this matter. The Government is depriving the wheat-grower of the right of the sale of his product at a price that he is able to get in the open markets of the world, and is, in effect, stepping in and saying, “ We will sell your wheat for this lower price; we will not give you what you can get for it; and we will take any kudos that may come from the sale at a lower price “. The commodity belongs to the wheat-growers, not to the Government. Will the honorable senator deny that the wheat-growers, owing to the cancellation of contracts and variation of the prices in the contracts already made, will lose from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 this year?

Senator Nash:

– The wheat-grower knew those conditions when the sale was made.

Senator COOPER:

– Is it fair that the wheat-grower should be asked to bear the full extent of that los3? As a community we are prepared to bear the loss for the reason that we believe it is our duty to supply wheat to our kith and kin in Great Britain, and to other communities which are destitute and starving, at as low a price as we possibly can. But let us pay for it out of national funds, not out of the. wheat-growers’ pockets. It is no use saying we are doing this, or doing that, if it is done with some one else’s money. The wheat-growers have already supplied wheat for the local market at below world parity, hut the Government also expects them to provide wheat at concession rates for stock feed and mill offal to the poultry industry at cheap rates. Originally, the quantity of wheat required for purposes other than human consumption was approximately 10,000,000 bushels a year, but now that figure fluctuates between 10,000,000 and 14,000.000 bushels a year. Whilst it is essential that poultry-farmers shall receive wheat and mill offal at reasonable prices if our egg contracts with the United Kingdom are to be fulfilled, this means, in effect, that the wheat-farmer is being asked to subsidize the poultry industry. For some time, the Government has been boasting about the enormous subsidies that are being paid to various industries, but I question whether the people of this country realize the sacrifice that the wheat-farmer is making to permit the price of eggs and other primary products to be kept down. This is a subsidy not from the Government, but out of the pockets of the wheat-growers.

The International Wheat Agreement provides for the supply of 500,000,000 bushels of wheat a year for five years at a fixed maximum price of 2 dollars, and at a minimum price falling gradually from 1 dollar 50 cents to 1 dollar 10 cents. Australia’s quota is 85,000,000 bushels; Canada is to supply 230,000,000 bushels; and the United States of America 185,000,000 bushels. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the Government of the United States of America has ratified the International Agreement or intends to do so. I understand that the Canadian Parliament has already ratified it. If the United States of America does not take similar action, is it intended that Canada and Australia alone shall carry on the agreement, or will it automatically lapse? Article XII. of the agreement provides -

The .delegates of the importing countries shall hold 1,000 votes, which shall be distributed between them in the proportions which the guaranteed purchases of the countries have to the total of the guaranteed purchases. The delegates of the exporting countries shall alao hold 1,000 votes, which shall be distributed between them in the proportions which the guaranteed sales of the countries have to the total of the guaranteed sales. Each delegate shall have at least one vote and there shall be no fractional votes.

In accordance with this provision, Australia will have 170 votes out of 1,000, which is less than 6 per cent., and so we shall have very little say in the decisions of the International Wheat Council. The agreement also provides that should any exporting country be unable to supply its quota of wheat under the agreement, the remaining two countries shall have an opportunity to do so. For instance, should Australia be unable to fulfil its obligation, the ‘United States of America and Canada would be asked to make up the deficiency. If neither of those ,countries could supply the necessary wheat, Australia would be released of its .obligations, provided that its failure to meet them was due to crop losses and certain other specified contingencies. The exporting Countries are tied by the provision that they may sell wheat on the free market only after they have met their obligations under the agreement. This places Australia at a disadvantage, because its quota is almost equal to the amount of wheat that would be available for export in an average season, whereas in normal circumstances Canada or the United States - particularly the latter - would have a substantial surplus of export wheat over and above the quota fixed under the agreement. That wheat could be sold on the open market, at relatively higher prices, and th-us could recoup those countries for any losses that they mig!” incur ‘by selling their quota -wheat at the price specified in -the agreement. To mee, home-consumption requirements and th£ quota imposed under the agreement while allowing for certain reserves. Aaistr.aS.ia will require am average harvest of approximately 170,00,0,00.0 -bushels or 180,000,000 bushels. The 1-947-48 harvest was -a record. In that season Australia produced 203,0Q.Q,-.Q,00 bushels, but all honorable senators are aware of the seasonal fluctuations that occur in this country.. An ad-verse season in certain wheat-growing areas next year might mean a yield of considerably less than 203,000,060 bushels.

One of the greatest weaknesses of the agreement is that .only thx.ee .of the world’s wheat exporting .countries, Canada, the United States of America .and Australia, are parties to it. Before the war, both Russia and Argentina exported large quantities of wheat, and it is difficult to say how much wheat those countries will be producing in excess of their own requirements in four or five years’ time. After all, to increase wheat production it is only necessary to till the ground and plant the seed, provided, of course, seasonable conditions are favorable. In that respect wheat production differs from the sheep industry or the cattle industry in which preparations must be made years ahead to increase the production of wool or beef. Wheat production is only a matter of acreage and past experience shows thai production can be expanded rapidly. 3 draw attention to this matter merely to emphasize the weakness of the agreement. -Obviously, the agreement presupposes a substantial increase of production in the next five years because provision is made for a diminishing price. Should a world glut of wheat occur there is no assurance that the signatory importing nations will not buy wheat on the cheapest market. The agreement contains no sanctions, ,so that any purchasing -country which breaks the agreement by buying wheat from “.outside” countries at lower .prices will do so -with impunity. By contrast, the selling countries suffer great .disadvantages. At the present tamp they are deprived of the present high prices paid for wheat isa the world’s markets. The terms of the agreement prevent wheat-producing countries from taking advantage of -the present high prices, and the only compensation offered to them is the prospect of receiving a stablereturn. in the years ahead. However, the future price of wheat is something which no one .can foretell, and, as an offset to the provisions of the agreement which are intended to maintain a stable price for wheat, we know that if a glut .occurs some countries will not hesitate to huy the cheapest wheat available in disregard of the agreement.

Paragraph 1 of Article IS., provides -

The exporting countries .shall ensure that stocks of old wheat held at the end of their respective crop-years (excluding price stabilisation reserves) are not less than the quantities specified hi the Annex to this Article; provided that such stocks mav -be’ permitted to fall .below the minimum so specified if the Council decides that this is necessary in order to provide the quantity of wheat needed to meet either the domestic requirements of the exporting countries or the import requirements of the importing countries

The annex is as follows : -

Obviously that provision was inserted to enable the exporting countries to call upon a reserve, and such reserves must be accumulated in the wheat-exporting countries. Can the Minister inform the Senate how those reserves are to be financed? In past years it has been quite a common practice to carry wheat over from one year to another, but that practice was made possible by a regular system of finance. Australia, is now required to hold in reserve 25,000,000 bushels of wheat, not for its own use, but for the use of importing countries, and I should like to know whether the growers will be expected to finance the reserve scheme, or whether the Government proposes to do so from money in the wheat pool. What price is to be paid to the growers in respect of wheat placed in reserve? Are the growers to be paid according to the current price at the time wheat is placed in reserve, or according to the price paid during some succeeding year? Article VI. of the agreement provides that the maximum price to be paid for wheat during the operation of the agreement, which is a period of five years, shall gradually decrease.

Article IX. provides that exporting countries are to accumulate a substantial reserve from the wheat available for export, whilst importing countries, are required to set aside a stabilization fund sufficient to enable them to perform their obligations. Paragraph 2 states -

The contracting exporting countries and those contracting importing countries which arc not recognized by the Council as predominantly importers of flour shall operate price stabilization reserves up to ten per cent, of their respective guaranteed quantities for each crop-year specified in the Annexures to Article II., subject to the following conditions : - (ti) subject to the provisions of (6) and (c) above, contracting exporting and contracting importing countries shall accumulate price stabilization reserves as soon and so long as free-market prices are below the lowest basic minimum price prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article VI.; and

I assume that if the price of wheat fell below the permissible minimum provided by the agreement the exporting countries would have to purchase sufficient wheat to accumulate a stabilization reserve of 8,500,000 bushels.

  1. contracting exporting and contracting importing countries shall sell or utilize their price stabilization reserves as soon and so long as free-market prices are above the basic maximum prices prescribed in paragraph 1 of Article VI.

When the price of wheat rises higher than the maximum prescribed in the agreement, I assume that in the interest of stability of world markets the exporting countries will sell their reserves at the higher rate. That provision might be quite sound as a stabilization measure, but I ask the Minister to explain how the stabilization reserve stocks are to be financed. Are the growers to be required to provide finance to stabilize their own industry after they have foregone millions of pounds because of the operation of the agreement? In the first year of operation of the agreement it is estimated that Australian wheat-growers will be deprived of approximately £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 because they will be prevented from taking advantage of the high prices obtaining overseas for wheat. The matters which I have mentioned require a thorough explanation by the Government, and nothing less will satisfy the wheat-growers and, indeed, the people of Australia.

The agreement does not appear to provide for the inclusion in our export quota of a proportion of flour. I remind the Government that a substantial flourmilling industry has been established in this country over many years and it is now operating effectively and successfully. If Australia is to be prevented from continuing to export large quantities of flour, the effect on the industry, including its numerous employees, and our general economy will be serious. If we are to forego the benefit of the high prices at present being paid overseas for wheat we should at least be permitted to maintain, and, if possible to expand, our flourmilling industry.

The production of sufficient food for Britain also involves provision of an adequate supply of flour-millers’ offal for various primary industries. Dairying, pig, poultry and other primary industries are dependent on the supply of offal from local flour-millers to maintain their production, and if that supply is curtailed because of a reduction of flourmilling in this country, our exports ‘ of food to the United Kingdom will suffer. [ am informed that the poultry-farmers of Australia expect to increase their flocks by 4,500,000 birds. The poultry industry is a substantial one with bright prospects of expansion, but it is dependent to a considerable degree on the supply of flour offal. Furthermore, in bad seasons large quantities of wheat are consumed as fodder by starving stock, and in that respect it has proved to be more easily assimilated by stock than maize. Pollard, bran and other byproducts of the milling industry form the basis of many preparations fed to dairy cattle. Honorable senators will realize, therefore, that it is important that our flour-mills should operate at maximum production.

The wheat-growers of Australia realize that the agreement is not in their best interest, and it certainly has not received their approval. Because the Government has a majority in both Houses of the Parliament, it is not possible for the Opposition to prevent the passage of this measure, or even to amend it, but I have endeavoured to point out its many disadvantages.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

.- This is a measure to give approval to the International “Wheat Agreement which has been signed by representatives of Australia and 35 other countries. The purpose of the agreement is to stabilize the price of wheat between the consumers and the producers who are parties to it. No other commodity has been the subject of so much political turmoil as wheat, and it is a remarkable fact that attempts to stabilize the industry in Australia have always met with opposition from individuals who are prepared to throw a spanner into the works. The story of the wheat-growers’ efforts to secure proper recognition for the services which they render to the community in producing one of our most important commodities is a very sorry one. Throughout the history of the industry in Australia, the growers have had to contend with adverse conditions. In some years, they have suffered from over-production; in other years they have suffered from under-production caused by droughts and other unfavorable seasonal conditions. Periodically they have experienced profitable seasons when bad conditions in other parts of the world have reacted to their advantage by causing prices to rise. Because hope seems to spring eternal in the breasts of our primary producers, when prosperity comes, even though it be for only a brief period, the growers are prone to forget the struggles of the past and to believe that their future prosperity is assured. At such times, they view their prospects through rose-tinted glasses. This has happened once again in recent years.

Our wheat harvest last year reached record proportions, and prices also rose to record levels as the result of the scarcity of grain in other parts of the world caused by poor harvests at a time when world economy had not recovered from the dislocation of the war. When the proposal for an international wheat agreement was first mooted, I, like other honorable senators who are interested in the wheat industry, devoted serious thought to the matter. When I read that the Australian Government had sold a quantity of wheat to the United Kingdom Government at 17s. a bushel and another quantity to the Indian Government at 18s. 6d. a bushel, I wondered how long such high prices would prevail. I saw the satisfaction with which the growers greeted the announcement of these sales, and I wondered what the effect of an international agreement would be. At that time, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) had intimated that any shipments of wheat that had not been despatched before next August would be sold at a price to be agreed upon amongst the countries entering into the agreement. The price that has been agreed upon is not so high as either of the rates fixed in the previous contracts made with the United Kingdom and India. Because of this, the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator Cooper) and members of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives condemned the agreement, lock, stock and barrel.

They claim that the growers are being robbed of about £13,000,000 this year the sum which they contend represents the difference between the price guaranteed under the agreement and the extremely high prices obtainable on the world’s markets. The Leader of the Opposition suggested this afternoon that the growers should not be called upon to bear this financial loss and that it should be made a charge upon the whole community. In the first place, we are not sure that the wheatgrowers will be mulct as he claimed. Is there any solid foundation for the argument that the loss will be a real one? Can the Leader of the Opposition or any other opponent of the scheme guarantee to the growers that current exorbitant prices on the open market will prevail for any length of time? The Australian Wheat Board was opposed to the fixing of a firm price under any agreement, even for a period of twelve months. It was prepared only to sell wheat on a quarterly basis. Who can say ‘that, at any given time next year, current high prices will still prevail? The wheat-growers of the United States of America have reaped the greatest harvest in the history of that country, a quantity exceeding the previous record by about 300,000,000 bushels. Who can forecast with certainty the effect of Russia’s production in the future ? Only a few days ago, Russia announced to those countries in Europe under its control that it would be able to assist them in far greater measure than it had previously expected. That means that Russia also has produced a record harvest and that large quantities of wheat will flow into its satellite countries. I believe that the major powers are already contending for control of the barges that are used for the transportation of produce along the Danube and other rivers. These facts indicate that there is a superabundance of wheat in the United States of America and Russia. The unloading of these crops will cause prices to fall, probably to a level far below that fixed for the sales made by Australia to the United Kingdom and India. In spite of this, the Leader of the Opposition, the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) in the House of Representatives, and other spokesmen for the Australian Country party, are endeavouring to delude the wheat-growers. They are doing so merely for party political purposes. Unfortunately, such manoeuvring has occurred whenever attempts have been made in Australia to stabilize the wheat industry.

In order to assess the probable value of the international agreement to the wheatgrowers over a period of years, Ave should recall what happened in the past, particularly after World War I., when prices increased as .they have done recently.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Why not consult the wheat-growers?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I shall tell the honorable senator why we will not consult them if he will listen patiently to my story. I shall deal with that question in the course of my argument. I have here a copy of the South Australian Wheat Grower of the 22nd February, 1946. It contains an article which presents a complete picture of the history of the wheat industry in Australia ore] a period’ of twenty years, extending from 1919-20 to 1938-39. It includes a table setting out the total crop, in bushels, of the Australian wheat harvest for each of those years, the quantity of wheat retained on the farms in each year, the quantities sold, the prices paid on the open market and the amount of the returns received by the growers in Australian currency. The article was published for the purpose of showing the advantages that would have accrued to the growers had the 1945-46 wheat stabilization plan sponsored by the present Government been in operation during those years. It is not my purpose to show the effect that the scheme would have had, because that has nothing to do with the subject now under consideration. However, the prices paid for wheat during those years have a very important bearing on the problem which’ we are now considering, because they demonstrate the advantages that stabilization would bring to the growers, and that factor is a very important feature of the International Wheat Agreement. With the permission of the Senate, I shall incorporate the complete table in Mansard.

In assessing farmers' loss, the amount of £4,820,833 must be added to the total of Column 13. This represents the loss in 1919-20 which did not go to the Stabilization Fund. The difference in value of wheat sold under open market and stabilization as per columns 6 and 9 is £125,251,036 in favour of stabilization. See explanatory . articles on opposite page. From that table honorable senators will note that following a consistent decline, the price of wheat fell from 8s. 10½d. a bushel in 1919-20 to 2s. 4£d. a bushel in 1930-31. The wheat-growers of Australia will not readily forget the latter year. The figures tell an even more dismal story until 1938-39, the year in which the recent war broke out, when the price of wheat was only 2s. 5d. a bushel. The Leader of the Opposition should have no difficulty in recollecting that period because, at that time, the wheat industry was the subject of several debates in this chamber. In 1929-30 the Scullin Government endeavoured to guarantee a price to growers which in those days was regarded as fair and reasonable. But that scheme was vigorously opposed by the Opposition including members of the Australian Country party who, as I have already said, claim to represent the wheatgrowers. The growers were left lamenting as the result of the action then taken by their so-called friends. Later, attempts to stabilize the price of wheat were frustrated by those who, invariably, have endeavoured to delude the farmers by suggesting that they would in some way be robbed under such schemes. The Leader of the Opposition contended that the general community should be called upon to make good to the wheatgrowers the difference between the price guaranteed under this agreement and the price that might prevail on a free market. The honorable senator has a very short memory. During the recent referendum campaign his colleague, the Leader of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives, **Mr. Fadden,** when urging the people to vote against the Government's proposals, cited the Government's action in contracting to sell a quantity of wheat to our sister dominion of New Zealand. What were the arguments put forward by the Opposition when that agreement was under consideration in this chamber? The then Leader of the Opposition, **Senator McLeay,** raised the cry that the growers were being robbed because the price under that contract was less than the ruling price for wheat. However, when it was made clear that the growers would not lose anything under that contract because the Government would make good out of Consolidated Revenue the difference between the export price and the price under that contract, the opposition parties argued that the Government was raiding the Treasury and robbing the taxpayers. A few months, ago, that was robbery ; but to-day, according to the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber and the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. McEwen),** the Government would be justified in raiding the Treasury in order to supplement the price set out in this international agreement ! Those facts reveal the inconsistency of the opposition parties who claim to speak in the interests of the wheat-growers. One of the greatest tragedies which have befallen the wheat industry in this country has been the injury done to it by the *agentsprovocateurs* and saboteurs who have endeavoured to delude the growers throughout the Commonwealth with the object of keeping them toiling under conditions which have deprived them of economic security. Despite the services they have rendered to the community since they began to till the soil, they have been exploited by market riggers and middle men who have urged them to reject all stabilization schemes because they might be able to obtain a price a little more favorable in the near future. The same story is being told to the growers to-day in the hope that they will be led to believe that injury will be done to them under this international agreement. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that wheat made available to the United Kingdom under this agreement would be bartered by the British Government for foodstuffs obtainable from other countries, and he urged that the wheatgrowers of Australia should not be called upon to bear the loss involved. He added that the growers were not out to exploit the poverty and misery of any people overseas. The ordinary, decent wheat-grower in Australia does not desire to wring the last penny out of the impoverished heart of the Empire. However, one cannot escape the conclusion that certain interests in this country who boast about the great British Empire and suggest that the Labour movement is not doing sufficient to help the people of the United Kingdom are out to get the last penny when it conies to selling a commodity to the impoverished British people. I do not believe that members of the Parliament who indulge in those tactics are speaking on behalf of the Australian wheat-growers. The growers in their saner moments, when they have been free from the influence of *agentsprovocateurs* and saboteurs working on behalf of the middle men, have stated in unequivocal terms that they only desire r,o obtain a price for their product which will guarantee them security, enable them to live as decent citizens enjoying the amenities of life and fit their children to fight the battle of life by giving to them a decent education. That is all that the wheat-growers themselves demand. Recently, I had the pleasure of attending a conference of wool and wheatgrowers in Melbourne. Whilst delegates were at variance with respect to the details of any international wheat agreement, they were unanimous in their desire to procure a plan which would give them a stabilized price providing a fair margin over the cost of production. That conference discussed at length the finding of a committee which had thoroughly investigated the cost of production, and I note that the minimum price guaranteed under this agreement exceeds that figure. {: .speaker-JZH} ##### Senator Amour: -- It is a brand new order. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- Yes ; this agreement heralds the new order which the wheat-growers have been seeking for the last twenty years. It will guarantee them, for the next five years, a stabilized price exceeding the cost of production. Even should the bottom fall out of the wheat market during that' period due to the causes I mentioned earlier, namely, the possibility of surplus wheat finding its way on to the market from the United States of America, Russia and other wheat-growing countries, the growers of Australia, thanks to this agreement, can rest assured that the price they will receive will not fall to as low as 2s. 5d. a bushel as it did during the years following World War I. This agreement assures prosperity to our growers. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- Where is the assurance? {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- The agreement guarantees a maximum price of 12s. a bushel and a minimum price of 6s. 4d. a bushel to the Australian wheat-grower. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- G - Guaranteed by whom? {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- By the parties who have contracted under the agreement to purchase Australian wheat. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- Suppose they should be able to buy wheat more cheaply from some other country? {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- I am surprised at the Leader of the Opposition. Why are we entering into this agreement? We are doing so because the parties to it have agreed to buy wheat at a price which will yield a fair return to the growers. Apparently, honorable senators opposite imply that the 35 nations which have signed the agreement, including the United Kingdom, cannot be trusted to honour their bond. The honorable senator suggests that we have no guarantee, and therefore, in effect, says that the great Mother Country cannot be trusted, even with her signature on an agreement. That is the implication which one is justified in saying is contained in the arguments advanced by the honorable senator. There is another very important point which I think we should take notice of when we' clamour for the highest price it is possible to obtain. ] again remind honorable senators of the Opposition that after World War I., when there was a scarcity of wheat in the world, many countries, including France and others which were not looked'' upon as wheat-growing countries, produced considerable quantities of wheat. Even Great Britain, because of ite inability to obtain wheat at a reasonable price, due to the scarcity, was forced to undertake wheat-growing. It was quite uneconomical for those countries to endeavour to grow wheat, but because of the conditions which existed, they made an effort to do so, with the result that an increased production of wheat in those countries led to a corresponding diminution of their demand for import wheat from other countries. So we see the effect of high prices. They cause uneconomical production, because countries are compelled to engage in activities which they would' not otherwise undertake if they were able to obtain the particular commodity at a reasonable price. On the other hand we must consider the effect of low prices for wheat; they destroy the economy of the producing nation, because when prices are low there is a tendency for producers to go out of business. Consequently the most desirable position to have in the world is that there shall be paid for commodities a price that it fair to both producer and consumer. For the next five years 36 nations will have stability in connexion with wheat, and for that reason I believe that the Government was justified in entering into this agreement. Let us consider another feature of the argument of the Opposition, namely, that, in respect of the wheat grown for home consumption, the farmer will suffer a disadvantage, and that the economic position of this country will be affected by the agreement. Supposing we charged the Australian consumer of wheat 17s. a bushel, when that was the price of wheat sold to the United Kingdom, and 18s. 6d. a bushel was the price charged to India, what would be the position in Australia? If there was no other machinery in operation at all, and the Australian consumer paid the world parity for wheat, the cost of flour would be increased, and there would be a corresponding increase of the price of bread. Assuming that those engaged in pig-meat production and egg production paid the increased cost of wheat, and still continued in business, there would be a corresponding increase in the prices of pig-meats and eggs. Therefore we should have the increase in those commodities reflected in our basic wage. When the Commonwealth Statistician issued his periodic return, we should find the basic wage of the worker increased, and consequent upon that increase it would be necessary for the producers of other commodities to raise their prices. The position would then be that the wheat-farmer would have to pay far more for the various commodities used on his farm. Because of the higher prices of those commodities, he would be no better off. The possibilities are that he would be worse off, because of heavier overhead costs.We all know that the best market for the Australian producer is the home market. If he has an assured price in Australia and Australian workers are able to pay the price for the commodity which he produces, then his prosperity is stable. Therefore it would be to his disadvantage for the price paid by the Australian public for wheat to be increased. I remember very well the late **Mr. Percy** Stewart, who was looked upon as the leader, and, indeed, the great idol, of the wheat-growers. He spent his life endeavouring to place the wheat-growing industry in Australia upon a favorable basis. He passed very pertinent remarks upon the position of the Australian market. Perusing a copy of *The South Australian Wheat-grower,* I came upon a statement made by him in 1930. During the course of my previous remarks, I drew the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the year 1 930 was a very disastrous one, because at that period wheat had fallen to 2s. 4?d. a bushel. **Mr. Stewart's** remarks were made at a discussion which took place in Canberra, when the Scullin Government was in office and was endeavouring to do something for the wheat-growers. The article reads - {: .page-start } page 2023 {:#debate-12} ### A VOICE FROM THE PAST What the Late P. G. Stewart, M.P., said at a Canberra Wheat Conference in 1930. In the year 1930, on the 12th November,a conference of wheat interests was held at Canberra to discuss the serious position of the wheat industry due to the. extremely low price of wheat at that time. Delegates attended from all States, consisting of representatives of governments, wheat-growers organizations and wheat merchants. Thesouth Australian Wheat Growers Association was represented by **Mr. J.** E. Maycock. At that time **Mr. Maycock** was secretary. The article continues - >An outstanding figure at this conference was the late **Mr. P.** G. Stewart, who, up till the time of his death, may be justly describedas the idol of the wheat industry. No man ever earned or deserved a warmer place in the hearts of wheat-growers than **Mr. P.** G. Stewart. He worked unflinchingly in the interests of the wheat-growers until his death > >The following is an extract from a speech made by **Mr. Stewart** at the conference in 1930:- > > **Mr. STEWART.** I never heard a more hopeless case than that put up by **Mr. Ford** for this industry . . . **Mr. Forde** was then Minister for Trade and Customs in the Scullin Government. The article continues - >I am not blaming **Mr. Forde** for the statement lie made. Amongst other things, it indicated that the Commonwealth Bank and other banks arc actually dictating not only the financial but the political policy of this country. > >When the Commonwealth Parliament, backed by the State governments, offered to give n guarantee to protect one of our greatest industries, and the banks, in effect, refused, saying that the Government's credit is worthless, it created, it seems to me, an extraordinary position. It means, in effect, th.it die hanks are dictating the policy and that the Commonwealth and State Governments, however anxious, are unable to help the industry. Ee was referring to the wheat industry. The balance of the article reads as follows :- >One shilling and sixpence per bushel, out nf which the farmer must pay 3d. for the ba-r. "ives the grower ls. 3d. per bushel, an absolutely hopeless position, and many of the growers would lie justified in refusing to harvest their crop. The price of wheat for local consumption ought to be pegged at a reasonable rate. I consider it is not just or equitable that the people of Australia should luted on wheat at slump rates simply because Russia has broken the market. If shipowners put up their freights 6s. per ton, the price of wheat is automatically lowered 2d. per bushel to the people of Australia. > >The price of wheat at all times should bfixed in Australia, while you maintain your present policy, upon a reasonable cost of production. It is wrong for the wheat-grower to be compelled to feed a protectionist community at slump rate3 because the overseas market has broken. If the overseas market went to 10s. a bushel, I hold it would be morally wrong to charge our own kith ami kin 10s. a bushel for wheat that cost 5s. a bushel to grow. Because of the practice over the years of having a home consumption price, the wheat-growers have been guaranteed ii payable price for wheat grown for local consumption, and the Australian economy has been maintained at a stable level. As **Mr. Stewart** pointed out in that speech, when the price of wheat for local consumption fluctuates, our economy is effected accordingly. There is no justification for the contention of the Opposition that the Australian Government should not ratify this agreement, which was only arrived at after a long period of discussion, and it is not right to say that the Australian wheat-growers knew nothing of what was likely to happen in regard to their wheat. All the facts relating- to an impending agreement were placed befor the appropriate authority - the Australian Wheat Board. In his communications with the board, the Minister placed his cards on the table. He wanted to be in a position to negotiate with the British Ministry of Food, which was pressing him for a decision so that plans could be made for the future. Everybody knows the food position in the United Kingdom to-day. Recently, a food mission visited this country to get some idea of what Australia could do for the people of the Homeland. Unfortunately, for some reason or other, members of the Australian Wheat Board could not make up their minds on a longterm contract price. They could not bring themselves to support the making of an agreement for longer than three months. {: #debate-12-s0 .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- I have seen the correspondence that passed between the Minister and the board. {: #debate-12-s1 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The Minister himself said that the board had not been consulted. I do not know whether it was consulted or not. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- In the final stages of the negotiations, the Government stepped in and completed the contract. ' But that does not mean that theAustralian Wheat Board was not awareof what was going on. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I - I am just, repeating what the Minister said. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- I do not think that the Minister did say that. {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- No. It is ft misrepresentation of what the Minister said. He made a press statement. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- W - Why not quote from *Hansard ?* {: .speaker-K5X} ##### Senator SHEEHAN: -- 1 understand that this statement is also in *Hansard..* The Minister traced the negotiations right through from the time when Lord Addison, the leader of the United Kingdom: delegation to the' British Commonwealth conference, approached the Australian Government in regard to the purchase of wheat, up to the conclusion of the deal with the United Kingdom early in December. The Minister quoted at length the cables exchanged between the two Governments, and provided relevant extracts from the minutes of the Australian "Wheat Board. He said that the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. McEwen)** had claimed that the Government had entered into the contract with the United Kingdom without consulting the Australian Wheat Board. That was false. The Minister's first letter to the board wass da-ted the 1st September, and it had indicated; the United Kingdom's vital interest in supplies from the then incoming' crop an'd its preparedness r.o consider favorably a long-term purchase, plan. The- Minister asked the board, as a matter of urgency, for its ideas on u satisfactory contract. He asked also for consideration of Supplies of from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 bushels of wheat for India, New Zealand and other nearer markets. The Minister also quoted extracts from his letter to the Australian Wheat Board. I believe that the statement that the Minister- had not consulted the Australian Wheat Board teas mack by the honorable member for Indi, or some one else anxious to misrepresent the Minister. The statement has been given considerable 'publicity. It is- typical of the utterances of those who are opposed to the Government. The . aim- of the statements is to discourage wheat-growers. By placing all the facts of the matter before the wheat-growers I believe that we can justify every phase of the International Wheat Agreement. Let us consider the position in which, the Australian wheat-grower will find himself in the next five years. With, this agreement in force he will have absolute security. He will know that come what may he need not worry about securing a fair and reasonable reward for his labour. Before concluding, I should like- to q.uote again from a- letter written by the late **Mr. J.** E. Maycock to the *South Australian Wheat Grower* in 1946., After dealing, with the wheat stabilization proposals then propounded, by the Labour Government, he said that he would not take the attitude that if certain improvements were not made he> would consider *the* plan unfair. He continued - >I think any farmer- who has had my experience would- take the same attitude. I still' have' a very keon remembrance' of the distress which existed in the farming community of Australia in the early 'thirties, after ten years of good, prices', when Farm Assistance Acts and debt adjustment legislation was enacted in all the great wheat-growing States of Australia. > >I remember that 3,000 farmers went bankrupt in this State in ten years. > >I remember that for four or five years my work consisted chiefly of meeting hundreds of farmers, taking out a statement of their assets and' liabilities and then being: forced to tell them they were in such a financial position that they had no hope of recovery am. that the only business proposition before them Was- bankruptcy. > >These m en came from, all parts of the State, good country as well as bad. 1 remember that most of these men were aged .between 55 and 05'. They had spent a lifetime working on the land; honest industrious and lovable citizens and I had to tell them that their country did not want them any more, that they were human scrap ! A few were fortunate. They were over 05 and could not get the old-age- pension of £1 per week ! > >I REMEMBER! I'll never forget! And 1 don't want it to happen again and it won't if I can help it. T stand for wheat stabilization. What is the position to-day? The International Wheat Agreement gives to Australian wheat-growers .a guarantee that for the next five years, or possibly longer, it will not be necessary to create organizations such as farmers' debt adjustment boards.. The agreement will give to the wheat-growers something that they have been seeking, for the last twenty years - -a stabilized price. They will be able to face the future with confidence. By accepting this agreement they will be placing, themselves on an equal footing with people engaged in other industries in. this country. They need no longer be fearful of what the future holds for them, scanning, the newspapers daily to see whether there has been a rise of a: farthing or a half-penny a bushel- in. the price of wheat at the Chicago wheat pit, or on. other overseas markets. Those who to-day are endeavouring to delude the farming community for political purposes should beware, because I believe that the wheat farmers are alive to the situation. They will no longer be misled, because, they appreciate the fact that the Labour Government has done so much to ensure security for them in the future. {: #debate-12-s2 .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- One would have expected the opponents of this measure to give some indication of the reasons for their belief that the price of wheat on the world's markets will not fall in the next few years ; and that therefore the farmers should be wary of entering into the proposed International Wheat Agreement, but neither in this chamber nor in the Souse of Representatives has any Opposition member endeavoured to do so. Yet that is a fundamental proposition and is much more important than the question whether or not there has been a plebiscite of the Australian wheat-growers. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -- T - The Government has not proved that there will be a fall of 6Si in the price of wheat on overseas markets. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- In the first five minutes of his speech, **Senator Sheehan** indicated clearly that world conditions to-day pointed to a fall in the price of wheat. I hold the view that the wheatfarmers in this country to-day are fortunate people. It is true that they will lose some money this year under the agreement, but, in racing parlance, you cannot back a horse after it has passed the post. It would be very nice if the wheat-farmers could get 17s. a bushel for wheat this year, and then in two years' time, when the price had fallen to perhaps 5s. bushel, call on the Government for a subsidy. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** and his colleagues appear to favour individual" initiative when prices are high and socialism when they are low. We did not hear all this talk about government interference when the price of wheat was 2s. a bushel. No government interference or so-called " socialism " was regarded then as highly desirable. " Socialism " is of course a misnomer. In fact, in the last ten years the words " socialism " " communism " and " democracy " have lost their meaning entirely. The more Opposition members talk about socialism the less they seem to know about it. As **Senator Sheehan** has said there is every indication throughout the world to-day that the price of wheat will fall. While **Senator Sheehan** was speaking, **Senator O'sullivan** interjected that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** had stated that the Australian Wheat Board had not been consulted about the International Wheat Agreement. I listened to the Minister's speech, and what he said was that members of the Australian Wheat Board had been consulted on the agreement with Great Britain, but had refused to pledge themselves to secrecy. He considered that as secrecy was essential in regard to the International Wheat Agreement, the members of the Australia Wheat Board should not be further trusted. Let us look at ' the world situation. The wheat-growing potentialities of the Ukraine which is one of the most fertile areas of Europe, are such that it is within the realm of possibility that in two or three years' time that country will be producing wheat for sale at 2s. a bushel. Rumania is now being industrialized by Russia, and by the Rumanians themselves, and large tracts of country are being given to the peasants for cultivation. Hungary, which was once the granary of Europe is swinging back into production. Apart from what the Marshall plan may seek to do for American imperialism - I do not think that it is an idealistic proposition at all - if it is to succeed in putting capitalism back on its feet, it must get wheat grown again in Europe. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- T - That is outside the iron curtain - in Western Europe. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- Yes. I am dealing with the entire picture. I am endeavouring to show that the tendency throughout Europe is towards the production of more wheat. If the Marshall plan turns out to be successful, a great quantity of export wheat will not be necessary from the United States, Canada, or any other wheat-exporting country, but if the Marshall plan fails, the consuming countries will be so impoverished that they will not be able to purchase any considerable quantity of wheat. However, I understand that all international reports indicate that Europe will probably produce as much wheat as it did before the war. If the law of supply and demand be the deter- mining factor in these matters - as it is - then everything is tending towards a fall in the price of wheat. In saying that I am merely stating a fundamental economic proposition. Of course, no one can foretell the future, and another war, or some other gigantic calamity, may occur. In the next two or three years all we can do is to analyse objectively the information available to us and make a logical forecast as to the future price of wheat. I say that any one who makes such an analysis can come to no other conclusion than that prices are likely to fall. It has been said that some of the consumer countries which have undertaken to abide by the agreement may abrogate it in times of stress and purchase wheat from " outside " countries. Those who advance that contention argue that the agreement is of no use in any case, because Russia and Argentina have declined to become parties to it. I invite honorable senators to consider the position if no agreement had been reached. We should not be in any worse position, because Argentina and Russia could still sell wheat at a lower price than the exporting countries which have become parties to the agreement. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- E - Except that dollars are necessary for the purchase of wheat from Argentina, whereas we can sell ours for sterling. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- But even if no agreement were made, Argentina and Russia would still be able to dump their surplus wheat on the markets of the world, so that the price would inevitably fall. The mere fact that we are parties to an agreement will enable us to co-operate with Canada and the United States of America to minimize the effect of any move to depress unduly the price of wheat. For those reason the contention chat the agreement is futile is fallacious, and on analysis the proposition reduces itself to an absurdity. We hear a great deal of talk nowadays concerning "food for Britain". Undoubtedly the operation of economic laws is one of the most important factors in international relations to-day. Those who pretend to represent the interests of farmers and rural workers in this country should not imagine that the United Kingdom can go on paying 17s. a bushel for. wheat indefinitely. Of course, if the Government, by waving some magic wand, could lower tariffs and reduce the price of imported farm machinery, and reduce the wages and working conditions of rural labour, it might be possible for wheat-farmers to reduce the price 'of wheat to Great Britain to say 15s. a bushel. In that way they would save the British consumers a lot of money, whilst not diminishing their own profits. Of course, that would be very nice, but unfortunately, other countries have a say in such matters. One of the dilemmas confronting Great Britain to-day is that it has to " buy dear " and " sell cheap " if the nation is to survive economically. That situation has been brought about because every country, including Australia, has exploited the United Kingdom. The United States of America does not want to sell machinery to Great Britain, because the provision of machinery for the United Kingdom would enable that country to compete with American exports in the markets of the world. And if we were as patriotic as we profess to be we should realize quite plainly that we are strangling Great Britain by continuing to charge that country 17s. a bushel for our wheat. The sooner that farmers and others realize that in our own interests we must treat Great Britain fairly the better. I have heard people, including the honorable member for Reid **(Mr. Lang),** say that international conferences 'are a waste of time, and that a man like **Mr. McCarthy** should not have been sent to represent Australia at the recent international wheat conference because he is not a farmer. I think that there is far too much talk about farmers. A man may be a very competent farmer without knowing anything whatever about economics. **Mr. McCarthy** is not a farmer, but he certainly knows a great deal about economics. To contend that it is necessary for Australia's representative at such a conference to be a farmer because primary produce is an item of the discussions is just as sensible as to argue that a doctor should have suffered from every conceivable disease if he is to know anything about medicine. There are isolationists and countries pursuing an independent economic policy in the world to-day, but Australia is one country which cannot afford to adopt that attitude. I am quite satisfied that the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction **(Mr. Dedman)** who led the Australian delegation overseas, did an exceedingly good job in all the circumstances. The question has been asked, " "What will happen if the United States of America refuses to sign the agreement?" It is quite possible that the United States House of Representatives will reject the legislation to ratify the agreement, because it is well known that that chamber is composed of representatives of the most diverse economic interests. Furthermore, there is a very strong element in the United States of America which is opposed to ratification of the agreement. [ do not speak for the Government on this aspect of the matter, and I Iia ve no personal knowledge of the possibilities but I can imagine that if the United States of America refuses to ratify the agreement it will fall by the 'board. However, if that happens we shall be in no worse position than we are in now. It is quite obvious that the state of the world to-day requires some planned organization in international economy. As **Senator Sheehan** pointed out we have, on the one hand, people who are crying out that prices must be kept down, whilst, on the other hand, people who are equally vociferous are agitating for higher prices. Every one who has something to sell wants the highest price yet when he has to buy something he thinks that he should get it for the lowest possible price. "We cannot have it both ways, and if inflation is to be halted - and nothing encourages inflation like inflation - we must enter into international agreements to regulate the sale of agricultural produce. Food is, perhaps, the most important thing in the world to-day ; and next .to food I should place coal, and then oil. When the prices of those commodities increase wages and rente inevitably rise, and so the spiral of inflation begins. I say without hesitation that the present Government has .been exceedingly good to the farmers. No honest farmer will deny that before the war he -never imagined that be would he in the prosperous state in which he finds himself to-day. Farmers who own their own land are getting 17s. a bushel for wheat! If any of them had been told in 1929 that he would receive 17s. a bushel for wheat he would have thought the suggestion fantastic. I do not contend that the farmers are the most important people in the community, because we all live by and through one another. However, tl] e fact remains that the farmers have been better treated by the present Government than by any previous administration. I am not so foolish as to suggest that their prosperous condition to-day is due solely to the Government. We all know that the main cause of their prosperity lies in the recent war and in the terrible state of the world to-day. In 1929 the price of wheat fell to approximately 2s. a bushel. Contrast that with the income which wheatfarmers ave receiving to-day. Surely it. is not right, because we control, and even produce, a certain commodity, that we should hold the world to ransom ? The Opposition has failed absolutely to show that this is not a good agreement. I invite **Senator O'Sullivan** or **Senator Rankin** who have not yet spoken on this bill to get up and say: "I will demonstrate by an objective review of the conditions obtaining in the world to-day, that the farmers are more likely to receive a higher price in 1949, 1950, 19,51, 195.2 or 1953 than they are receiving now ". Criticism of the agreement by any one who cannot do that is hollow and amounts to nothing more than the tinkling of a cymbal. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The onus doe.not lie on the Opposition to prove that the agreement is bad; the onus rests on the Government to prove that it is good. {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator GRANT: -- -By reviewing conditions throughout the world, I thought that I had established that all the present indications are that the price of wheat will fall. Of course, if I were sure that price would fall I would be y prophet. Any man who can forecast confidently the events of next year is a marvel! Wars and rumours of wars abound.; we have talk of revolution in tb.it country, and of dictatorship in that; but all .that we can do is to apply our intelligence to the existing circumstances and ask ourselves fairly .what is likely to happen. I say that any one of average intelligence, whether he be a member of the Senate or not,, can come to no other conclusion than the one which I have indicated. However, I do not consider it necessary to indulge' in any rhetoric, because *the* farmers and every other section of the community have to face realities-. I am quite confident thant if the Government were to say to1 any section of the community, " We guarantee you a continuance of similar conditions to" those which will be enjoyed by the farmers for the next five years " those people would be absolutely overjoyed. I am satisfied that the Australian delegation worthily represented our interests abroad, and that its leader, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction should be congratulated'. If other honorable senators opposite speak on this- measure [ trust that they will endeavour to show that the agreement is- a bad one.- Of course; the' agreement- can be considered te be good, bad- or indifferent; but the Opposition has- consistently criticized the agreement, and the onus rest's- on its mem. bers to show that it" is bad or indifferent. Supporters of the Government have; I think, demonstrated tha* it is a' good one. E submit' that honorable senators opposite cannot show (hot the1 agreement is' bad, or even indifferent. Taking' into consideration conditions in the world" as they are- to-day, the inevitable conclusion to which any responsible person' must come is that the price of wheat will fall. Therefore, I submit that the Government has done a good job' in safeguarding our interests.. **Senator** NASH (Western Australia) '9.1o]'.-"I approach the International Wheat Agreement in- the1 belief that the Australian Government and' the other signatory governments' have endeavoured to' Create as system' which will guarantee stability to- the three' producing nations for the next' five years- by providing for the1 purchase of a specified' quantity of wheat' by the 33 consuming. nations; For. this reason, it is regrettable that this subject has been thrown into the political football arena-. Recently I toured some- of the agricultural areas' of Western Australia- and discussed' the subject of the International Wheat Agreement with the' people whom' I met'. I urged' théro particularly to consider the agreement in the light of the effect it would have upon them if successfully implemented by the contracting countries. The fact that members of the Australian Country party in the Senate and the House of Representatives have been severely critical of the agreement reminds me that the history of their party since its establishment has been a story of promises without action. This Government is not giving the wheat-farmers mere lipservice. It is endeavouring to' guarantee some stability in their industry so as to give them a sense of security for the future. Under the agreement, 33 countries will guarantee to purchase from the three exporting countries, including Australia,, a total of 500,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum. Australia's contribution to that quantity will be 85,000,000 bushels. Its approximate annual production' in normal season's- is about 146,000,000 bushels. Therefore,, this quota represents about the maximum quantity that we- can afford to- export under present conditions while maintaining, sufficient stocks for home consumption. This agreement is something new' in our' history. No other contract of this character lias ever been conceived or" pui info operation. Members of the Opposition iff both Houses- of this Parliament have talked a! great deal recently a'bout: freedom of enterprise, and the Leader of the Opposition' **(Senator" Cooper)** declared to-day" that this measure represented another attempt by the Government to socialize! the- wheat industry. Opposition members' must be entirely bereft of lan-y Constructive view's about the agreement"! {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- And1 they know nothing' about' socialism. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is true. " Socialism " is a word" which is freely bandied about in the community, but those who talk so glibly about " socialism "j " bureaucracy " and "controls " rarely understand what they are talking about. They use the wordseasily in order to imply' that, to say the least, they bode no good for the people. The- opposite is- the case. I do not stand in support" of' socialization',, but I say that, without some system of social ownership and control of the means of production and transport in Australia, we should never have reached our present stage of development. For example, but for government ownership and control of our railway systems, primary production in this country would still be in the doldrums. These people who try to confuse issues by the misuse of such words as "socialization" do so without having examined their fundamental meaning, and consequently they speak in ignorance. T tell the wheat-growers of Australia, that as a member of this Parliament I am anxious that the Government shall do everything within its power in their interests. I want them to obtain the best possible prices for their product. Speaking in all humility as one who has no expert knowledge of the wheat industry, I nevertheless declare that nobody can estimate accurately the state of the world's wheat markets six months or twelve months hence. Nobody can foretell how harvests will be affected by seasonal and other conditions in various parts of the world. In fact, the latest information available suggests that the wheat market, instead of remaining a sellers' market, is rapidly becoming a buyers' market. In these circumstances, how can the producers expect to calculate the prices that will prevail a year or two years from now ? They must give serious consideration to all of the economic factors that are likely to affect their markets. The international agreement guarantees a maximum price of 2 dollars a bushel, the equivalent of about 12s. a bushel, for a period of five years, not just for six months. Furthermore, it guarantees a minimum price varying from about 9s. a bushel initially to about 6s. 4d. a bushel for the final year of the agreement. Therefore,, if the contracting nations stand by the agreement, the farmers will enjoy a degree of stability during the next five years such as they have never previously experienced. In view of present world conditions, I cannot help recalling the events which followed World War I., when wheat prices rose sharply. According to my memory, prices reached a peak of about 6s. a bushel. At that time, some of my work mates in the industry in which I was employed said to me, " Here is a chance for us to get out and make good on our own ". They left their employment, took up land and developed it, and for a year or two they prospered. However, many of them returned to their old jobs very soon afterwards because, after the period of boom, the bottom suddenly dropped out of the market. I can recall the time when the price of wheat in .Australia was as low as a ls. a bushel. The virtue of the international agreement fixing flour prices for a guaranteed quantity of wheat for a period of five years is obvious. Under such a system of stabilization, we shall not witness the distressing spectacle of wheat being dumped in the sea when over-production occurs in an effort to maintain the price level. Prosperity is general throughout Australia to-day. Our economic outlook is vastly better than it was not many years ago. The people have acquired assets, and they have a total of about £600,000,000 to their credit in our savings banks. They have not been pauperized under the regime of this Government. There must be a reason for this situation. We all recall vividly the days when citizens queued up for meals at soup kitchens, and when policemen were in the habit of giving a hungry man a shilling and telling him to pass on to the next town. Such poverty is not evident anywhere in Australia to-day. We have full employment, despite the assertion of the Leader of the "Opposition that we must secure greater production from industry. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- T - That is what the Prime Minister says too ! {: #debate-12-s3 .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- We admit the need for increased production, but it is easy to make an assertion without suggesting means of carrying it into effect. I shall give an illustration of the difficulty of doing as the Leader of the Opposition suggests. Recently I had an opportunity to inspect the Newcastle steelworks and I noticed that some furnaces were cold and that others were under repair. After inspecting that great undertaking, which is o"f vital importance to the nation, I asked the general manager about the state of production. He replied, " Production to-day is about 75 per cent, of normal output ". I asked why it could not be increased to 100 per cent., and he told me that the establishment needed 500 or 600 additional employees and that it could not recruit fresh labour by any means. He also told me that, although the management owned two collieries, it could not obtain sufficient coal for the needs of the industry. What is the use of talking about increased production in such circumstances? Members of the Opposition also talk about alleged economic difficulties which are besetting the nation. [ admit that there is grave danger of inflation in Australia, and I sincerely believe that the misguided decision of a majority of the people at the referendum, as the result of false propaganda, may lead to a more desperate economic state in the near future than we have ever known in the past. When we speak about the need for increasing production, let us look at the facts. Our great problem in all industries is the lack of man-power. Until such time as we can produce sufficient goods and commodities to meet the demand, the danger of inflation will continue to threaten this country. Honorable senators opposite have had much to say about the disabilities confronting the primary producers. A few weeks ago T. had the opportunity to travel through farming districts in Western Australia, and I was surprised by the number of new cars which I saw in those, areas. Most of them were cars of the expensive type including many imported models. Is not that evidence of prosperity among our primary producers? What has brought it about? It has been brought about .by the economic policy which the Government implemented during the war and since the cessation of hostilities. In 1944 this Government stabilized the price of wheat at 4s. Id. a bushel. I recall that in 1946 representatives of the growers' organizations expressed the view that a price of 5s. 2d. a bushel would be adequate to meet the cost of production and provide a fair return to the grower. About that time a committee was appointed to ascertain the actual cost of production in the industry. Whilst I cannot recollect the figure at which that committee arrived, I .know that it was under 6s. a bushel. I mention that fact because under this agreement the growers of Australia will be guaranteed for the next five years a minimum price of 6s. 4d. a bushel. The committee to which I have referred reached its conclusion at a time when costs in the industry had reached their apex. Yet, the price guaranteed under this agreement is well above that figure. All of us admit the possibility that for some time the price of wheat on a free market may .be higher than 12s. a bushel, which is the maximum price guaranteed under this agreement. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** contends that the difference between the maximum price guaranteed under the agreement and any higher price on a free market - it may be 17s. a bushel within the next six months - should be paid to the wheatgrowers from Consolidated Revenue. That was the essence of the case he presented. I can only say that in putting it forward he completely accepted the principles of socialization. However, whilst honorable senators opposite have based their arguments upon possibilities and probabilities, this agreement offers something concrete. I understand that "when Lord Addison visited this country with the object, among other things, of arranging for adequate supplies of wheat for the United Kingdom, and arranged a contract at 17s. a bushel, and when the contract was made for the sale of wheat to India at 18s. 6d. a bushel, the wheat-growers were clearly given to understand that those contracts would be subject to revision when this international agreement was being negotiated. In view of that fact, honorable senators opposite will not serve any good purpose by endeavouring to cloud the issue by telling the wheatgrowers that but for this agreement they would continue to receive a price of 17s. a bushel. I shall not accept the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that the taxpayers should be called upon to make good the difference between the maximum price guaranteed under the agreement and any higher price that might be obtainable on a free market. This is a concrete proposal which every intelligent wheat-grower will welcome. I urge wheat-growers generally to find out who are their friends and who are not their friends, because many of them have been misled by people who profess to be their friends but who. I venture to say, -arc -associated with those interests which la.ve always -exploited the primary producers. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -kd. - And have always robbed them. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- Yes. My only concern is that we shall do the .right thing by the primary producers. This agreement .represents .-a genuine effort by the (Countries which are .parties .to it to provide on ian inter-national .plane -a .reasona'ble -degree of security to -both the producers and consumers of wheat throughO.ut the world. What will be the result of this schemed It will help to stabilize wage rates and costs of production. On the other hand, under a system of free enterprise, as it is called, the growers might for a time -enjoy unprecedented prosperity, but inevitably they would crash. Our primary purpose must 'be to maintain a -stable economy. This agreement and others of its kind will enable Australia to .maintain the distinction df possessing the soundest economy of any country in "the "world to-day. 'Our present prosperity has not been achieved by mere :K,p service on the -part of 'the Government. The G'overn-ment 'has had the courage to do a real joh. The Minister for Trade and 'Customs **(Senator Courtice)** in his second-reading speech told us that the price of wheat -overseas has fallen sharply -during the last six months. I -challenge any one to tell ane what 'the -price of wheat >wi'l'l be at <&ny time in the future. We must also remem'ber 'that wheatproducing countries -are increasing their production. Only recently I read >a press report that production in -the United 'States of America this year 'had reached a record. We know -also that many European countries -are endeavouring to produce -sufficient to meet their own requirements. **'Senator Grant** -and Sena-tor Sheehan dealt fully- with 'that aspect -of the problem. Honorable senators opposite -contend 'that -because Russia and Argentina a-re .not parties to this agreement they may play " ducks and drakes " with this- scheme. How«ever, it is -clear that in it-he absence of any agreement at all, 'the Australia® wheatgrower would 'be much -worse off. The agreement guarantees -the 'sale 'of 85-000,000 bushels of Australian -wheat (for the next fisse years .at prices rangimg f rom '6s. i4d. a bushel to il-2s. a ^bushel. I trust that the Opposition parties -will >mend their ways, and .desist -from .their practice >of -using the wheat industry as a party-political football. .The Labour party has newer .dealt with the wheat .industry, or .any other industry, on, a (partypolitical basis, .It ,has stabilized various industries, and ,has ,-made available generous .subsidies for their .development. Only /recently I received a letter from /representatives qf .the fruit-growing .'industry in Western .Australia urgently requesting .me to persuade the Govern!ment to -continue .the .apple and pear acquisition .scheme. The reason for that request ,is that sufficient shipping .is .not available »to .export surplus production. Where would the wheat-growers be today, had the Government not .-stabilized their industry during the -war when no ships were available to transport surplus production overseas"? "Where would 'the industry ",be to-day, "had the Government during the last few years left the growers 'to the tender mercies of 'those interests about which we have "beard so much, 'but whose main object is Ito exploit our primary producers? The 'Government is determined that the wheatgrowers s'hall receive a fair deal. 'The Leader of the Opposition said that under the agreement "they -are -committed to -sell their -wheat 'for the next five years at .a price which has virtually 'been -feed 'by *h A. Minister for 'Commerce and Agriculture (Mi-. (Pollard). Why cannot the honora'ble .-senator be 'honest in this matter? He knows -that the Minister did not, a-nd -could not, fix the price set out in this international (agreement. Bte knows 'that .the price has been determined hy the -parties to the -agreement. I have been informed that ian international agreement similar in character to the (one now -before us would .have been available to (this Parliament perhaps (twelve months earlier, -bad it -not -been for -the attitude .of Great Britain, because it mas not prepared to (pay -the price then required for the good reason that it could not pay,. The 'fact, is that it has been most difficult, to get -the Government of -Gr-eat Britain to agree to a maximum price of l-2s. a .bushel for Australian wheat. It is all very well .for ,the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement of that sort, but he should be fair and not say that the Minister virtually determined the price. I say that the price was determined by people who knew what they were doing, because they knew the economic circumstances of the countries they represented. In connexion with this international agreement, I believe that the representatives of Australia did a very good job, indeed. The Leader of the Opposition also told us that the Australian Wheat-growers Federation was not consulted in any way. There may be some truth in that and I am not going to dispute it, but I understand that every possible publicity was given to the proposed international trade agreement by the Minister and other people associated with this Government. Regardless of what happened, how could the wheat-growers of this country have been consulted as to the prices to be paid, when the conference took place on the other side of the world ? lt is absurd to make such a suggestion. I have -already referred to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that the whole object of the wheat agreement is to socialize the wheat industry. I am afraid that the honorable senator is developing a new psychology. I remember an honorable senator - who is not now a member of this Senate - who frequently spoke about communism, industrial troubles and socialization. I thought that when he ceased to be a senator we should hear no more of these subjects in this chamber, but apparently the Leader of the Opposition is of a mind to start the whole business -all over again. I believe that this Government has attempted to do a genuine job on behalf of the wheatgrowers of this country, and, appreciating the motive which activated it, I maintain that the wheat-growers of Australia had nothing to fear as a result of the international wheat agreement. {: #debate-12-s4 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
Queensland -- - Since my leader **(Senator Cooper)** spoke on this bill, a lot of loud and dust has been flying, and one would think we were out in the wheatfields. I think that all Australians are keenly in favour of a stabilized price for our primary products. That has been stated by some honorable senators as the basis of the bill now before the chamber. My objection to this agreement is that its nature is such that it is quite beyond the ordinary and proper scope of a government to make. If there is to be such an international agreement, it should be entered into with the aid and assistance of the Government, and representatives of the particular industry affected, in this case, wheat. In the sugar industry we have an example of an industry run with government assistance; it is probably the best organized primary industry in the Commonwealth. Every phase of that industry is controlled by members of the industry itself. It has certain statutory governmental encouragement, regulation and direction, but that industry stands on its own feet and it it the best organized, the most solvent, and the most solid primary industry in this Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KVB} ##### Senator Morrow: -- It has been very hard to get white sugar lately ! {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- That is That is because the honorable senator's colleagues will not work. Let us understand the position quite clearly. The Opposition is strongly in favour of, and is prepared to support any measure which will ensure that our primary producers shall be guaranteed a stable minimum price for their production over a certain period. Unfortunately, this agreement is a snare and a delusion. When an agreement entered into by the Government is criticized, I ask honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber .not to shed any tears because of a belief that we are criticizing them on the grounds of dishonesty or impropriety, or for some other ulterior or wicked motive. We are limiting our criticism merely to the Government's judgment. In my opinion, this is a bad agreement for the industry and for Australia, and it is, as I shall show in a moment, a bad agreement for Great Britain. Before proceeding further I should like to comment on a remark made by **Senator Sheehan** in this chamber to-day. When it was suggested by way of interjection that this agreement was really no guarantee at all to the wheat-growers, he threw his arms up in horror and asked if we doubted the integrity of the Mother Country. **Senator Sheehan** is as fully aware as other honorable senators must be, that this is what is called a separate, as distinct from a joint and several obligation. Great Britain will not be responsible if any of the other 35 contracting parties default. We know that there is, among British people, a tradition of bargain-keeping. The commercial reputation of British firms, banks, insurance companies and commercial houses generally throughout the world is second to none. The credit of British firms and establishments has never been doubted in any part of the world. But that cannot be said of the peoples of the commercial houses and enterprises of all other countries. There are no sanctions in the agreement whereby defaults may be punished, and there is no provision whereby a defaulting country may be sued, or if sued, how the amount awarded against it could be recovered. I say that that statement by **Senator Sheehan** is sheer humbug. Thirty-five contracting countries may be as sound as the Rock of Gibraltar, as far as I know, but the point is, that as an ordinary commercial precaution we take every precaution in Australia in dealing with our own people - fellow citizens whom we know. Time and time again our courts are invoked for the purpose of straightening out disputes as to the interpretation of an agreement, awarding damages by way of compensation for breach of agreement, &c, and our courts provide ways and means whereby penalties and damages awarded may be collected. In this agreement there is no provision whatever for a penalty or for the means whereby a penalty could be' enforced against a defaulting party. **Senator Grant** made, a very interesting contribution to the debate and I agree entirely with his conclusion that the prospects are more in favour of a decline, than a rise in prices, but that is one reason why I strongly support a stabilized minimum price over a fixed period. This agreement does not provide that guarantee. The three contracting parties which are exporting countries are ' Canada, the United States of America and Australia. As far as I know, the United States of America has not yet signed, Australia has committed itself, and Canada is the only producing country that has signed. The greatest part of. the wheat of the world is produced outside those three countries. The average production of Argentina over the last three years, for example, is considerably ahead- {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- Not ahead of the United States. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- T - The order is Canada, the United States of America and Australia; but the greatest producers of wheat in the world are Russia and the Balkan countries, which are satellites of Russia or are under Russian influence. We have no guarantee of what will happen in Russia and the satellite countries behind the " iron curtain " after this agreement has been safely signed, sealed and delivered. We are people of British stock who believe in the moral sanctity of contracts, and we are bound hand and foot by this agreement. We have to keep certain stocks in reserve in case they are called for, and there is nothing to stop Russia and the satellite countries from deluging- the whole of Western Europe with their huge surpluses of wheat, at a price far below the minimum provided in this agreement. It would not be the first time in the history of mankind that cheap or gratuitous food had been used to influence the political and psychological outlook of peoples. In the future there may be a change of government controlling the whole of the Western European *bloc,* particularly if the opponents of the present controlling authorities should say. " Change the government, put us in power, and we will give you cheap food. We can guarantee cheap food because we have the biggest granary in Europe, bulging with stored wheat, which we will open to you if you come our way ". There is no guarantee that that cannot happen. Then there is the other side of the picture. There are countriesEgypt is one - that waxed fat by exploiting Great Britain when that country stood alone against the world and had no alternative but to commit itself to purchase goods at whatever prices were demanded. The coffers of those countries to-day are bulging with sterling, wrung from Great. Britain in its time of dire stress. Australia is the only wheat-producing country in the sterling group. If the United States of America, Argentina, or Canada sells wheat, the purchasers have to pay for it in dollars. If Australia could sell wheat to countries which to-day are replete with sterling, but are extremely short of dollars, we could obtain much higher prices, although perhaps for alimited period, because we could sell for sterling instead of dollars. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should be extortionate in our demands upon Great Britain. We could afford to give wheal to Britain if we were able to obtain the price that certain countries with hug« sterling reserves are prepared to pay for it, and we would be free to do that but for this agreement. There is another aspect of this agreement which I believe embarrasses Australia mu'ch more than Canada or the United States of America. "We are committed to an annual export quota of S5,000,000 bushels of wheat. That is 12,000,000 bushels per annum more than our average surplus available for export during the last ten years. {: .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator Ashley: -- That period of course includes the war years. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- That - That is so. On the other hand, the United States of America has a surplus of 500,000,000 bushels for export; yet that country's commitment under the agreement is only L85,000,000 bushels a year. The point I am making is that whereas Australia will have little or no surplus available with which to seek new markets, to make new contracts, and to build up trade which will help to expand the Australian economy, the United State of America with an exportable surplus of 500,000,000 bushels and with a commitment of only 1.85,000,000 bushels, will have plenty of wheat for these purposes. By all means let us guarantee a local minimum price to the Australian wheat-growers, but let us sell all we can to those other countries which to-day are rich in sterling. "We would then be in a position to make our own preferential agreements with the United Kingdom. I am opposed to the agreement in general principles because I believe it to he outside the function of a government; but here is another point: The standard prices are fixed on the basis of wheat in store at Fort William Canada. That country is closer to the United Kingdom than we are, and therefore has an advantage over us. But we are closer to India and other eastern markets, yet we can obtain only the same price as Canada for our wheat. Considering freight alone, without extra handling charges we find that whereas Australia is limited to the fixed maximum price of 12s. .od. a bushel, taking into account the extra freight which has to be paid on Canadian wheat, we should be getting 14s. 5d. a bushel. No provision is made in the agreement to correct that anomaly which may in the future cost the Australian wheat-farmer very dearly indeed, inasmuch as we are allowing Canadian and American wheat to enter what is, and should be, our own local market. In conclusion, I appeal to the Government to stop behaving like a clucky hen and treating the Opposition like a lot of chickens. I warn the Government that those chickens will one day come home to roost, and when they do, they will be roosting on the treasury bench. {: #debate-12-s5 .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia -- In rising to support this bill, I wish at the outset to say that although the agreement appears to be the best that can be obtained in the circumstances by the Government, there are aspects of it about which I should feel happier were we able to say with any degree of confidence that the long looked for unanimity amongst the wheat-growers had at last been achieved. I listened with interest to **Senator O'Sullivan's** explanation of the position of- the various countries which are, or we hope will be, signatories to the agreement. I was particularly interested in his reference to Canada and the United States of America because I realize that certain difficulties are created not only by the relationship of dollar currency to sterling, but also by the geographical situation of those countries in relation to markets compared with that of Australia. The honorable senator likened the Australian Government to a clucky hen, and warned it that the chickens would come home to roost. At the risk of earning **Senator O'Sullivan's** displeasure, I point out that throughout my association with politics, organized marketing of primary products has been a sore point with all governments regardless of their political complexion. By force of circumstances, this national Government has been compelled, mainly because of the lack of organization in the wheat industry itself to assume the role of a clucky hen. The first appeal to the people for wider powers for the Com-1 monwealth Parliament in respect of the marketing of primary products was made, if my memory serves me correctly, in 1937, when the late **Mr. Lyons** was Prime Minister. The overtures made to the people on that occasion met with an even more severe rebuke than was given to the present Government several weeks ago. It is regrettable indeed that whenever a national government has sought more power for the Commonwealth Parliament, the Opposition of the day has seen fit to oppose the referendum proposals. Had the 1937 referendum on the marketing of primary products succeeded, the additional authority with which the Commonwealth Parliament would have been clothed, might have been the means of stabilizing the great wheat industry of this country in the years that followed. In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Senator Courtice)** said that he did not think that there could be an international agreement on wheat or any other subject which would completely satisfy every one. The Minister added that the International Wheat Agreement was the result of long negotiations in the course of which varying viewpoints and interests had to be reconciled. All governments, State and Commonwealth, will admit, if they are honest, that one of their greatest difficulties in endeavouring to further the interests of the primary industries of this country has been the lack of unanimity amongst the primary producers themselves. In the wheat-growing industry in South Ausralia for many years past there has been a conflict of interests. This has greatly hampered efforts to stabilize the industry. Therefore. I am watching future developments with the greatest concern and I sincerely hope that the Minister's statement that the wheat-growers at long last are somewhat reconciled is correct. I venture to suggest that in the years from 1928 to 1933 many of the people who to-day are hostile to this legislation because of the alleged inadequacy of the return which it provides for Australian wheat-growers would have welcomed a stabilized price of 3s. 6d. a bushel. I have vivid recollections of many of my life-long associates who were farmers in various parts of South Australia, being forced into insolvency 'because of the conditions operating in the wheat industry. Only since there has been a Labour Government in this country has there been an honest attempt to stabilize the wheat industry by eliminating the gamble that wheatgrowers have had to take in past years both on seasonal conditions and world market prices. The International Wheat Agreement is being entered into by 36 countries, including the great wheat-producing conntries of Canada and the United States of America. Those two countries are to supply five-sixths and Australia one-sixth of the total wheat requirement under the agreement. This should ensure security to Australian wheat-growers for the next five years at least. I cannot reconcile the clamour by the press and by certain other sections of the community for more food for Britain - a most worthy objective - with their present action in aiding and abetting the wheat-growers of this country to oppose the International Wheat Agreement and to demand up to £1 a bushel for wheat supplied to Great Britain in order that its people shall have bread. Party politics has obtruded for too much in this matter, and the manner in which the Opposition parties have endeavoured to exploit the situation is devoid even of common decency. One of the most outstanding illustrations of selfishness and inconsistency which we have ever witnessed is supplied by a section of the people who, in one breath, clamour for more assistance to be given to the United Kingdom, and, in the next breath, demand that they be paid 17s. a bushel for their wheat. Their protestations reek with inconsistency; they are unchristian and should not be permitted to continue. Undoubtedly, some of the arguments advanced by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** and **Senator O'sullivan** were intended to destroy the confidence of the people in this agreement. They suggested that the parties to the agreement would not honour their undertaking; but the accredited representatives of the countries concerned have signed the agreement, and we have the assurance of the Government that those countries will honour their undertakings. Members of the Opposition also attacked the agreement by suggesting that Argentina and Russia would be able to defeat its effective operation. However, even if that did occur, we should not be any worse off than we are now, when we have no agreement. In considering the activities of other countries we should not forget the machinations of our own wheat dealers in the past. In the depression, when the price of wheat was at its lowest, and the people, not only of Great Britain but of Australia, were starving, grain merchants mid middlemen preferred to buy overseas wheat because its price was 2s. a quarter less than the local wheat. Their activities had & most detrimental effect on our economy, and, in consequence, wheatgrowers in this country had to continue producing wheat at a loss. Commonwealth and State governments had to pour out public funds to keep Australian citizens alive. The present Government does not want a repetition of those dreadful times, and I remind those who criticize the agreement of the ordeal which Australia underwent at that time. The wheat-growers of this country, about whom we hear so much to-day, had to go cap in hand to the " cluckv hen ", as **Senator O'Sullivan** called the Government, and ask for assistance. Recollection of the hardships suffered by the wheat-growers in the depression years should cause any thoughtful person to commend the Government for its perseverance in the exceedingly difficult task of achieving unity amongst our wheatfarmers. Given a reasonable opportunity, [ believe that the scheme embodied in the agreement will operate to the advantage of the wheat-growers of this country. As time goes on, the scheme may require amendment, but that is something which can be considered when the need arises. Because of their inglorious record and complete failure to provide stability in the wheat industry, the parties represented by the present members of the Opposition should be the last to criticize the Government. The present Administration has succeeded in making an agreement which guarantees the future of the wheat industry. I have no anxiety that the scheme will collapse because of the production of excessive quantities of wheat, or because of any adverse development in the relations between countries in the sterling and the dollar areas; my chief anxiety is the hypocritical attitude adopted by opponents of the Government, who clamour, at onemoment, for more food for Britain, and! in the next for payment of fi a bushel) for our wheat. Such a demand is not only inconsistent, but is absolutely inhuman and deserves the condemnation of all sections of the community. I remind those who could have us utilize our natural resources to exploit the rest of the world that our isolated geographical situation may one day require the friendship of the nations of the world. Critics of the agreement should remember that two other great wheat-producing nations ' and 33 consumer countries are also parties to the agreement. Those who are advocating so vigorously that Australian wheatgrowers should be allowed to take full advantage of the world's needs should also remember that in times of adversity the wheat-growers are invariably amongst the first to seek government assistance, regardless of what political party is in office. I commend to honorable senators the assurances given by the Minister for Agriculture **(Mr. Pollard)** and the Minister for Shipping and Fuel **(Senator** Ahley) on behalf of the Government that no difficulty is anticipated in the efficient operation of the scheme. I trust that the passage of the measure will bring home to wheat-growers that the Australian Labour party is the only political party which has striven continuously for the welfare of the whole community. {: #debate-12-s6 .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE:
Western Australia -- The successful conclusion of the present agreement transcends the most hopeful anticipations of those who have had the welfare of the wheat-growers at heart. Various schemes have been evolved to control the price of wheat and its distribution, but they would have been of no practical value if an international agreement has not been entered into. The agreement prescribes maximum and minimum prices of wheat and guarantees payment of those prices during the next five years. An extraordinary attitude has been adopted by members of the Opposition towards this agreement, and I am convinced that it is related to their violent opposition to the control of rents and prices. The agreement under consideration guarantees to the farmers a price for wheat which is higher than their average production costs as assessed by the committee which recently inquired into costs of production. The farmers themselves agree that the prices fixed by the agreement are satisfactory. The Government has assisted the farmers in every possible way and has always endeavoured to promote their interests. Because of their valuable contribution to the national economy, the Government has given them considerable concessions in the form of subsidies on superphosphates and other requirements. In addition, it has promoted schemes of water conservation and re-afforestation. During the war when materials and labour were practically unprocurable and farmers were prevented from maintaining their properties properly, the Government permitted them to place in reserve with the taxation authorities substantial sums which they undertook to expend on the improvement of their properties after the war. Now the value of those reserves is threatened by the inflation which -will follow the removal of price controls, a step which members of the Opposition have advocated continuously. The attack made by the Opposition parties on the vital interests of the farmers is twofold: they want to deprive the farmers of the benefits of the international wheat agreement by destroying their confidence in that agreement, and they seek to depreciate their savings by removing price controls. The fear of socialism has become almost a phobia with members of the Opposition; they have even suggested that the agreement under consideration is part of an international socialist scheme. Amongst the many countries which artparties to- the agreement is the United States of America, which has contracted to export 185,000,000 bushels of wheat annually. Imagine the hard-headed Commercial magnates of the United States oi America becoming parties to a " socialist " deal ! The big business men of that country have probably had more experience of international marketing than those of any other country, and they certainly " know the game Yet they are quite prepared to commit their country to a scheme which will involve the export of 185,000,000 bushel, of wheat annually. The ordinary common-sense view is that, if such a nation is a party to the agreement, Australia is in a good partnership. Canada is committed to supply a quota of 230,000,000 bushels. The representatives of , that country are well versed in the marketing of wheat and would not enter into such an arrangement without first carefully examining it. We all agree that the United States of America and Canada are great democracies. They are certainly not socialist countries. I challenge honorable senators who declare that this is a socialist agreement to prove that socialism exists in the administrations of thiUnited States of America and Canada or influences their trade agreements. Those countries are our allies; they are almost our own kith and kin, and they share our objective of protecting the world from exploitation. **Senator O'Sullivan** made the extraordinary statement that it is beyond the scope of the Government to market wheat. During the war, when the problems of marketing were indeed serious, the Opposition considered that the Government was the only authority capable of handling the job ! {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- W - We are not at war now. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- But we propose to carry on efficiently in peace just as we did in war. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- R - Regimentation ! I thought that was it ! {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- Not regimentation of the producers, though there may be regimentation of the people, -who, for many years past, have been taking the profits which should have gone to the wheat-growers. "We will regiment those people if the agreement is concluded. That is what the honorable senator fears. In "Western Australia, such people are known as " St. George's-terrace farmers ". They deal in advanced buying and leave the farmers destitute. There was a great deal of regimentation when the price of wheat was only ls. ll½d. a bushel; it was enforced by the time payment companies which held liens on the farmers' implements and materials, and by the banks which held mortgages that the farmers could not discharge. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- T - The honorable senator should find out whether the farmers want this agreement. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I know that they do want iti The honorable senator does not know what the farmers want. He and his colleagues are " the three wise politicians ". They hear nothing, see nothing and do nothing! {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- W - Why not ask the farmers what they want? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- They have been asked and they have said unanimously that they want stabilization. I make that statement with full confidence. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- A - As a " St. George's-terrace farmer " ? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- I do not know those people. They are of the same kidney as the honorable senator, and I cannot speak for them. As I have shown, Australia, as an exporting country under the agreement, will be in good company with Canada and the United States of America. ' On the other side of the bargain, one of the largest importers of wheat will be the United Kingdom. Members of the Opposition referred to the prices that have been paid to Australia under the agreements with Great Britain and India. Those agreements have been very profitable to us. We have received very high prices, and the United Kingdom Government has made the necessary shipping available to us. But make no mistake! The prices in those agreements were subject to variation in the event of any international agreement being made at lower rates. I propose to expose the fallacy of the Opposition's arguments on this subject. Canada and the United States of America will contribute 230,000,000 bushels and 185,000,000 bushels respectively to the pool. However, according to the *West Australian,* the current wheat crop in the United States of America will yield 200,000,000 bushels more than the normal exportable surplus. What would happen if, as the Opposition suggests, Australia should refuse to enter into the agreement and to .contribute its quota of 85,000,000 bushels? It would immediately lose its British and Indian contracts, because of the fixation of a lower price in an international agreement, and the United States of America and Canada would be able to supply, from their huge surpluses, the total quantity of wheat contracted for in the agreement. Australia would then be left lamenting, with a total of 85,000,000 bushels of wheat to be disposed of in competition with Russia and Argentina. I prefer that we should remain in partnership with Canada and the United States of America. The agreement will operate under an international council. The importing countries which have subscribed to it have -high reputations for honesty in international dealings. Therefore, we say that this Government has achieved for the farmers something that could not have been achieved by any other means. If the agreement were abrogated in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition we should have to compete on the open market to dispose of our wheat, without any guarantee of prices, and at the risk of a rapid drop in the market. Throughout the whole period of the agreement, if the markets should hold, we shall be paid at least 12s. a bushel. The minimum price, in the event of the market falling, will be 6s. 4d. a bushel during the last year of the scheme. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I - If the contracting nations do not buy our wheat, how will the contract be enforced? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- An international council will supervise the agreement, which is tighter than most international and interstate contracts. SenatorO' Sullivan. - But how can it be enforced? {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- All business transactions depend upon honour between the contracting parties. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- T - That is why the courts are busy ! {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- The honorable senator probably has no feeling in that matter.We have great confidence in the governments with which we are dealing. We are satisfied that the agreement is a good one and that it will be honoured by the United States of America, Canada, Great Britain and the other parties to it. **Senator O'Sullivan** has suggested that the farmers should market their own product. I have never heard of a farmer engaging in the international wheat trade. The suggestion was utterly stupid and ridiculous. The persons who have been interested in the marketing of Australian wheat overseas in the past have not been farmers. Perhaps the honorable senator favours the barter system. I remind him that we have advanced far beyond that stage in international trade. The honorable senator also described the scheme as a snare and a delusion. He did not say why.. The extraordinary logic of the honorable gentleman's argument was in the fact that he described the agreement as being bad for Australia, the seller, and also had for Great Britain, the buyer. If a contract is bad for the seller, it must be. good for the buyer. One or the other must gain by it. It cannot be bad on both sides. Even lawyers cannot win always. In any legal argument, one lawyer must lose. {: .speaker-K0N} ##### Senator Arnold: -- They win always ! {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- Not always. **Senator O'Sullivan's** logic was absurd when he declared that the agreement must be bad for both the buyer and the seller. In this instance, it will be good for both sides. Under the terms of the agreement, Australia's exportable surplus, if any, beyond the quota of 85,000,000 bushels, can be sold on the open market. In view of the present trend of the world's markets, it will be interesting to see what price is obtained for any such surplus. ' I remind honorable senators that the *West Australian,* which severely criticized the agreement prior to the referendum, has since warned its readers that prospects on the open market are not encouraging because the crops in the United States of America will exceed the normal exportable surplus by 200,000,000 bushels. During this debate we have frequently heard the legal phrase, "joint and several agreements ". {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- T - There is only one agreement. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- This agreement has been made with honorable countries in an honorable manner, and the Government has achieved something that any government having the interests of the farmers at heart would have sought to achieve. It will create international stability for the wheat industry. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -i -i did not challenge the honesty of any of the parties to the agreement. {: #debate-12-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator O'Sullivan** has been constantly interjecting. I shall be forced to name him if he continues to do so. I do not want to take that action. I have occupied the presidential chair in the Senate for a number of years and during that time I have been tolerant towards interjectors. I do not want to be a martinet, but there comes a time when, as President of the Senate, I must take a stand against repeated interjections. I warn the honorable senator that if he continues to offend I shall name him. {: .speaker-JQN} ##### Senator COOKE: -- The agreement is sound and solid. In the main, the wheatfarmers will benefit greatly from it and the national economy will be assisted. I commend the Minister who negotiated the agreement on behalf of Australia, and I compliment the Government upon performing a great stroke of work for our primary producers. {: #debate-12-s8 .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP *. - in reply* - I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. I appreciate very much the enthusiastic speeches made in support of the bill by several honorable senators who revealed a very thorough knowledge of the wheat industry and proved that they had studied the terms of the agreement carefully. They have answered most of the arguments advanced by the Opposition. I do not think- that the- leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) and **Senator O'sullivan** are very enthusiastic iaa> their opposition to the measure. Indeed, I should *hma* beeB surprised if their- opposition, had been serious, because- this measure, will be of immense value-, to a great Australian industry awd to. the economy- of the nation. The agreement is-,, in fact, the:.- culmination, of great- efforts over many years by both Habour govern.ment and anti-Labour governments.. At various) periods, governments' in the* past haves endeavoured to stabilize' the. industry:. It is unnecessary for- me to traverse the. history- of the industry.. All of> Um aire1, aware ofl the wild fluctuations of' prices and the consequent lack of security for- those engaged1 in- it. This agreement is a* notable* achievement: Representatives- of 3;6i governments, have indicated their support of it: with a. view to', establishing stability in.' tha industry. As, tha Leader of the Opposition has said, the grower; perhaps; may give something tinder1 the agreement in tha immediate future because, really (fantastic prices are now ruling; for' wheat. However,, a person- who gives, any thought to prevailing world conditions must realize that, prices cannot continue for rauch, longer at their present levels: If this:- agreement, is: carried o.ut for the period stipulated, it may be possible to extend its duration for a further period of five years,, because the purpose of the agreement means so much to the: peoples of the- world. The wheat industry has? been made a party political football for many- years. This agreement is an honest endeavour to stabilize it. The agreement will provide profitable prices to growers for a period of five years and it will benefit all who are engaged, directly or indirectly, in wheat-growing. **Senator O'sullivan** said that the growers have not asked for the agreement. I do not believe that he is very enthusiastic in his opposition to it. He said that I would not support an agreement of this kind in respect of the sugar industry. I point out that whilst the only parties to the sugar agreement are the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government, a great number of governments are parties to this agreement. We oan only hope- that it. will be fully carried out. There is; of course; the possibility that, k will not be- fuMy implemented, because some of' the parties, including- important producing' countries; may not see fit to ratify it. But it is based on fair grounds: **Senator ©^Sullivan-** said that the United S'tates. of America was not putting- so much into the agreement as; it should having' regard to that country's position as the leading wheat-producing- country. However, a® the- United- States1 of America is' supplying a- great volume of wheat, to the occupied zones' of Germany its contribution under' the agreement is> reasonable and in proportion- to that being made by other governments which are- parties to- it: The- agreement is a sincere- effort to obviate- the wild' fluctuations of prices which have so seriously disrupted the industry in the past' and adversely affected not only those directly engaged in it, but also our national' economy. In 1933L34!, the price of wheat- in- this country fell- to as low as 2s. a bushel', whilst some- wheat was sold at that time, at ls-.. l'Od. a bushel. I doi not. propose to discuss the. possibility of. prices remaining as, high as' theyara at- present., He would be a courageous man whO, would- attempt to forecast what prices will he? realized in tha future; However,, their are indications- already that; prices will decline.. I know that **Sir Stafford** Cripps; believes' that the price under the. agreement is: rather " hot from the. point of view of Great Britain. The United Kingdom Government made strenuous- efforts- to; set a' lower price, because it believes that the- world price will fall sharply in the. near future. Having regard to possible conditions* in the future, the price under the agreement" is very generous-. So far as Australia is concerned, the agreement represents an honest attempt, to meet a very difficult situation. Should we be content to go on as we have in the past we should again experience the fluctuations which have brought so much hardship to those engaged in the industry. **Senator 0'S.ullivan** argued that it was- the responsibility of the primary producers to make agreements of this kind. Surely he does not seriously advance that view, having regard to the fact that 35 other- governments are parties to this agreement. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the nation's products are marketed under orderly conditions. I have always advocated that policy, and I believe that the primary producers themselves are very keen to get an agreement of this kind, which guarantees a price based on the cost of production and allows them a fair return for their investment and enterprise. This is the first attempt which promises to bring real stability to the industry on a world plane. Obviously, it will be to the advantage of our economy as a whole. I believe that the primary producers of Australia welcome any proposal designed to establish orderly marketing of their products. I repeat that that is the function of the National Government. That is why I so strongly advocate that full power in that respect should he vested in the National Parliament because in our negotiations with other countries we speak, not as Queenslanders, Victorians, Western Australians or representatives of any individual State, but as Australians. This , agreement will have favorable repercussions on other primary industries which I hope will see in it . an example which they might well emulate, and thus bring not only to primary producers but also to consumers of foodstuffs the benefits inherent in such an arrangement. I commend the bill to the Senate, and hope that honorable senators opposite will not persevere in their opposition to it. The measure will make marketing history in this country. The growers will welcome it because it will give them security for a considerable period ahead, and, having regard to the uncertainty of world conditions generally, that is an immense advantage. The Parliament by ratifying the agreement will serve the wheat industry wisely and well. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. {:#subdebate-12-0} #### Schedule {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- As I understand that the prices under the agreement are determined in dollars, I should like to know whether any provi sion is made to effect adjustments in re lation to any alteration of the present rate of exchange. During the next five years, the period of the agreement, substantial changes may take place in the rate of exchange. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator Courtice: -- I shall obtain information on the point raised by the honorable senator. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- It is most important because the price is the essence of the agreement. Under Article IX. Australia undertakes to build up a reserve of 25,000,000 bushels. I should like to know how that reserve will be financed. In respect of that wheat, will an international pool be established from which payment will be made to growers? If not, how will it be financed? I refer to Article XVI., paragraphs 1 and 2. If 25,000,000 bushels is put into the reserve, it must be financed by somebody. If not, evidently the wheat-growers are just being asked to give the wheat to the international pool. {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · ALP -- On the currency question I draw attention to Article VI., paragraph 6- >The Executive Committee if at any time it considers, or if it receives representations from any contracting government, that the prices established under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article, or any prices determined under the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article are no longer, in the light of current transportation or exchange rates or market premiums or discounts, fair equivalents of the prices specified in paragraph 1 or determined under the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article may, in consultation with the Standing Technical Advisory Committee on Price Equivalents, adjust them accordingly. I think that answers the point raised by the honorable senator. {: #subdebate-12-0-s2 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- Can the Minister give some information regarding the reserve of 25,000,000 bushels referred to in Article IX? Paragraph 1 of that Article provides - >The exporting countries shall ensure that stocks of old wheat held at the end of their respective crop-years (excluding price stabilization reserves) are not less than the quantities specified in the annex of this article; provided that such stocks may be permitted to fall below the minimum so specified if the council decides that this is necessary in order to provide the quantity of wheat needed to meet either the domestic requirements of the exporting countries or the import requirements of the importing countries. . The annex to Article IX. gives 25,000,000 bushels as Australia's quota. Can the Minister explain how the 25,000,000 bushels will be financed ? "Will the grower, be paid for the wheat that he has put into the pool, or will he lend it and be paid for it at some future date? {: #subdebate-12-0-s3 .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP . -I understand that the 25,000,000 bushels is about the quantity of carryover in normal times. As I understand the position, that will not make any difference to the existing arrangements. The wheat to be held in reserve will not affect us to any considerable degree, because it has been the custom to carry over that quantity each year. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- I take it that the grower will not be paid for that wheat until it is finally sold? Can the Minister say when the grower will be paid for it? {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE: -- I quite understand that the Leader of the Opposition is anxious -to know what the producer is to receive for the wheat. He will be paid the equivalent of the price agreed on. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- That is a diminishing price. If he puts wheat in this year, will he get this year's price, or next year's, or what price? {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE: -- Under the law of averages it would balance out. {: #subdebate-12-0-s4 .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland -- But it is a new agreement. I presume the same payment will also be made for the wheat he puts into the stabilization scheme? If he is paid on a certain basis for those reserves, he still puts a further 8,500,000 bushels into the stabilization scheme. Will he still be paid on the same basis, will he eventually get the money for the wheat? This is an international agreement, and these provisions are being specifically made in that international agreement. I desire to know what provision is made to ensure that the grower shall get a fair deal for what he puts in. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator Courtice: -- I consider that these matters are questions of policy to be determined by those who will control the pool or arrangement but I assume that the interests of the wheat-growers will be fully safeguarded. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Article XVII. deals with the taking over of any other previous contracts that have been made. That will end the contracts entered into with Great Britain and India but I should like to know whether it will also affect the agreement with New Zealand? {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator Courtice: -- The New Zealand agreement will not be disturbed. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- I come now to Article XX., which I consider is the more important article of the agreement. Opposition members realize that they can do nothing to alter the agreement in any way. It has been entered into, and as the Government has a majority in both Houses it can put the agreement through, as it evidently intends to do. We have shown where we disagree with the method that the Government has adopted in this matter. The Minister said that the Government was the only authority to make international agreements. I entirely agree that that is a function of the Government But in this case the Government has' not - and the Minister admits this - in any way taken the advice or acknowledged the requests of the growers. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator Courtice: -- I do not admit that. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- The Minister admits that this agreement was brought forward without the growers' organizations being consulted. In each State there are organizations which represent the wheat industry and have full knowledge of the industry and its requirements, and I believe they are very well acquainted with the marketing side of the industry and the prices that would constitute reasonable remuneration. Those organizations were not consulted, and naturally they believe that they have been overlooked. They consider the Government did not put their case forward when making this agreement, but that it was solely a matter for the Government. It is not a case of " take it or leave it " ; it is " take it ". {: .speaker-KMN} ##### Senator Grant: -- The honorable senator can vote against the agreement if he does not like it. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator COOPER: -- Yes, but the honorable senator knows very well that it cannot be altered. {: #subdebate-12-0-s5 .speaker-KOU} ##### Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria .- The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** has not explained clearly the real reason for the opposition to this schedule. He is quarrelling about the action of the Government in entering into an agreement in order to give some security to the wheat-growers. When he says that the wheat-growers were not consulted regarding this matter, I should like to remind the honorable senator that the wheatgrowers of the past were led by the people who " farmed " the farmers. He should remember well that at 11 o'clock eachmorning during the wheat season, those people in Collins-street, who " farmed " their fanners met in their offices in conference, and decided the price of wheat, and that decision was conveyedto the wheat-growers throughout the Commonwealth. In those days, they were the people who decided the price of wheat. On this occasion, every consideration has been given by the Government, both in consultation with the wheat-growers, and otherwise, as to ways and means by which we can make possible the stabilization of the wheat industry. If they are not satisfied with this legislation, after it has been in operation for some time, they can then have a voice in what will be done regarding wheat in the future. Earlier this evening, I pointed out to honorable senators that the real opposition to this bill, is not because the Opposition senators are worried about the wheat-growers and the agreement which constitutes the schedule because since Labour assumed office in Canberra it has taken privileges away from from the Collins-street " farmers ". Earlier to-night, **Senator Sheehan** read out a list of wheat prices which prevailed in the years after World War I. Butthey were not the prices that the farmers received; they were the prices ruling on the world's markets. I come from a wheat-growing area, and I recall wheat being compulsorily acquired for1s. 6d. or1s . 7d. a bushel. The Leader of the Opposition expressed concern at the alleged failure of the Government to consult the wheat-growers in regard to this legislation; but they were consulted. I maintain that every consideration was given to the wheat-growers prior to the introduction of this measure. {: #subdebate-12-0-s6 .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP .-i do not know on what basis the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cooper)** assumes that the wheat-growers are opposed to this bill. One frequently finds a noisy minority opposing a proposal of which there is general approval. Undoubtedly, some wheat-growers are opposed to the International Wheat Agreement, but it is going rather far,I think, to assert that a majority of the wheat-growers are opposed to it. I believe that most wheat-growers support it. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- They are certainly not unanimous about it - far from it. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE: -- Nor is there unanimity in this chamber. {: .speaker-JQP} ##### Senator Cooper: -- I am entitled to speak on behalf of those who oppose the measure, just as the Minister is entitled to speak on behalf of those who support it. {: .speaker-JQY} ##### Senator COURTICE: -- I concede that, but it is presumption on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to say that a majority of the wheatgrowers are not favorable to the International Wheat agreement. I believe that I can rightly say that a majority of the wheatgrowers are in favour of it, because in making that assertion I have logic and good sense on my side. Schedule agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2044 {:#debate-13} ### PAPERS The following papers were pre sented : - >Canned Fruits Export Control Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1948, No. 64. Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department - Postmaster-General - M. L. Mundy. Works and Housing-F. J. Buchanan, J. H.Utting, P. R. Windsor. Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 65. Quarantine Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 63. Senate adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 June 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19480616_senate_18_197/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant