1919-08-20 7 2 0 SENATE 11649 0 Senate. 1919-08-20 The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. 11649 Questions 11649 Outbreak of Influenza in Tasmania. 11649 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, in view of the reported outbreak of influenza in Tasmania, have the Government taken, or do they intend to take, any steps towards having thatState, or any part of it, proclaimed under the Commonwealth Quarantine Act? If it is their intention to do that, what modification, if any, will there be of the restrictions regarding quarantine detention of travellers between Tasmania and the mainland ? 11649 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - I shall endeavour to supply the information in the course of the day. 11649 11649 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I ask the Leader of the Senate, in view of his own guarded statements in connexion with the present industrial trouble, whether he has noticed the cabled statement, alleged to have been made by Senator Pearce in London, that " the strikers are defeated, and Walsh is still in gaol." Does the honorable senator think that such a statement at this critical juncture is conducive to the settlement of the trouble. 11649 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - I have seen the paragraph referred to, and I say, I believe with the concurrence of honorable senators generally, that I am not disposed to take press statements as being necessarily accurate. 11649 Barnet Inquiry - Pay for Holidays 11649 K1L 0 0 BARNES, John Senator BARNES - I ask the Leader of the Senate whether he is in a position to reply to the question I asked last week in reference to the tabling of papers concerning the dismissal of ten men from the Public Service as a result of the inquiry by. Mr. Commissioner Barnet, concerning aliens in the Service? 11649 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - I am not yet in a position to give the honorable senator the information he seeks. 11649 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to reply to the questions which I put on last Friday concerning the amendment of the Public Service Act, and the observation of awards of the Arbitration Court to organizations registered under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act? 11649 KUL 0 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - The honorable senator asked the following questions: - Is be aware whether the Commonwealth Public Service Act was amended in 1918 to read as follows: - "The Minister of a Department, or the Permanent Head, or Chief Officer thereof, may require the Department, or any part thereof, to be kept open in the public interest for the whole or any portion of a holiday (observed in pursuance of any of the preceding sub-sections), and may require the attendance and service of any officer of the Department during that holiday; but in that case, that officer shall 'he granted an amount equal to a day's salary if a full day's attendance has been required, and a proportionate amount if less than a full day's attendance has been required; provided that no proportionate payment shall be less than one half day's pay" ? Is he aware whether, when the amending Bill was being debated in the Senate, the Minister in charge of the Bill said that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with any award obtained by associations in the Arbitration Court, and particularly with regard to the payment for time worked on a holiday? Is he aware whether at the present time work performed on a holiday when such exceeds four hours is to be based on the actual number of hours worked? Is he aware whether this is distinctly averse to the award of the Court, and also to the statement of the Minister in charge of the Bill? ' If so, will the Minister take steps to see that the awards of the Court are carried out? Inquiry waB promised, and I am now in a position to supply the following answers : - 1, 2, and 3. Yes. The Act as amended in 1918 provides conditions in relation to holiday pay as liberal as, or more liberal than, those contained in awards of the Arbitration Court, with the exception of one award under which officers if working for more than four hours and less than a full day formerly received a full day's pay, as against a proportionate payment under the Act for the time actually worked. The matter is one of administration, for which the Public Service Commissioner is responsible. 11650 Reportof Dethridge Commission 11650 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister, is it intended by the Government, and, if so, when, to place upon the table of the Senate the report of the Royal Commissioner, Mr. Dethridge, into the waterside workers' dispute, which; I understand, was received by the Government a couple of weeks ago ? 11650 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - It is intended to table that report, but I am not in a position to do so to-day. 11650 11650 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN -I ask the Leader of; the Senatewhether he has answers to the questions which I. asked the week before last regarding, particularly, skin-wool, and sugar?- 11650 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - The information has not yet been received. I shall send a reminder to those responsible for supplying it that the honorable senator is still awaiting replies: to his questions. 11650 papers The following papers were presented : - Apple Bounty Act 1918. - Particulars of Bounty paid, financial year 1918-19. Wythe River Iron Deposits: Reports of Experts, and other documents. Bounties Act 1007-1912. - Return of Payments for year 1918-19. Defence Act 1903-1918. - Regulations amended. -Statutory. Rules 1919, Nos. 197, 190, and 200. Naval Defence Act 1910-1918. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1919, Nos. 189, 190, and 198. Public Service Act 1902-1917.- Promotion of J.N. O'Connor, Department of the Treasury. Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1919, No. 181. Shale Oil Bounty Act 1917. - Particulars of Bounty paid, &c, financial year 1918-19. Women in Industry. - Appendices to Report of Committee, Summaries of Evidence, &c. (Paper presented to British Parliament.) 11650 Questions 11650 11650 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I ask the Minister for Defence whether he has any information to give in reply to questions I asked some time ago concerning persons deported from Australia? 11650 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - On the 8th August, the honorable senator asked the following questions: - How many men have been deported from Australia during the past twelve months? How many Australianrborn children have been rendered fatherless by these deportations? . Have the Government made any provision for the maintenance of the families of the deported men? Now peace has been declared, will compulsory deportation cease? I am now able to furnish the following information in reply : - Including Italian reservists and' enemy aliens - approximately, seventeen. None so far as this Department is aware. Sec No 2. It is still- intended to deport, when necessary, undesirable aliens. 11650 11650 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - ask the Vice- President of the Executive Council, who is in charge of the Wheat Pool, what is, approximately, . the unsold balance of wheat in: the several Wheat Pools in the Commonwealth? 11650 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - Approximately, the balance amounts to 30.000,000 bushels. I hope to be able to confirm that statement during the day. 11650 Armed Guard at Navy Office. 11650 KMP 0 0 GRANT, John Senator GRANT asked the. Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - Does the armed guard on duty outside the Navy Office salute all or any of the employees in the office, or are his attentions directed exclusively to . visitors ? What is the cost per month of maintaining this guard ? ' How much longer is this practice to continue t 11651 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The answers are - This guard is of great assistance to callers at the Navy Office,' especially during the present coal crisis. He salutes only such officers as the Naval Regulations require him to salute. There is no special cost, as the members of the guard are detailed from the Naval Guard Section which is doing duty in connexion with disembarkations of the Australian Imperial Force. The Naval Board do not consider it advisable to abolish this guard at present. 11651 Importations 11651 KMP 0 0 GRANT, John Senator GRANT asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice - Is any sheep dip at present held up by the Customs authorities ? If so, (a) what quantity; (b) on whose representations was this action decided upon; and (c) what are the reasons for this action? Is it a fact that the importers offered to give a bond to pay whatever duties may be imposed when the Tariff is amended if the Government immediately releases the goods? If the offer has been made, has it been accepted; and if not, why? . 11651 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The answers are - Yes. 2. (a) 1,650 5-galIon drums, 1,324 1-gallon drums, and 000 cases; (b) no representations were made in regard to these shipments other than by the . importers; (c) at the time the shipments were made the exporters were aware of the proclamation prohibiting importation of sheep dip unless with the consent of the Minister for Trade and Customs. Yes. No. The goods, being prohibited imports, are liable to forfeiture. As a special concession, however, the Government have agreed to allow shipments made since the issue of the proclamation to be held under Customs control pending the introduction of the new Tariff, delivery then to be given subject to payment of duty. It is not proposed to depart from that decision. 11651 11651 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator EARLE asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice - Will ho cause to be laid upon the table of tbte Senate a statement answering the following questions: - Was the' increased cost of the necessaries of life during the years 1014-1015 to 1918- 1919 less or greater in Australia than other countries in the world? In which State of Australia were the said increases for the same articles, for the same period, the highest? 11651 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - I lay on the table of the Senate a statement setting out the information desired by the honorable senator. 11651 Deportations by Returned Soldiers. 11651 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice - Has his attention been directed to a report of the forcible deportation of citizens of Kalgoorlie by returned soldiers? If the report is correct, does he approve of the forcible deportation of citizens without an open trial? 11651 KUL NAT 1 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator MILLEN - The answers are- On the15th August, the honorable senator was asked to furnish particulars of a case to which he had on that date referred to in order that inquiry might be made, but up to the present the information is not to hand. See answer to No. 1. 11651 Tuberculosis Cases in New South Wales 11651 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN asked the Acting Minister for Defence, upon notice - What is the total number of invalid soldiers suffering from tuberculosis in the State of New South Wales at present - Number of convalescent cases; ) Number of curable cases ; Number of incurable cases? 11651 K3E NAT 1 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator RUSSELL - The information is being obtained, and will be furnished at a later date. 11651 bill 11651 Debate resumed from 15th August (vide page 11604), on motion by Senator, Russell - That this Bill be now read a second time. 11651 KKZ New South Wales 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER . - In addressing myself to this Bill, I recognise that it is a very important measure, and one that directly affects our primary producers. I am not altogether satisfied with the manner in which it was introduced, or with the matter brought before us by the Minister when he was moving the second reading. He said there are practically five Bills in one, which means that five very important industries are dealt with, in one measure. As the new standing order limits honorable senators to sixty minutes in which to deliver a second-reading speech, we have only twelve minutes in which to deal with each of the five huge industries concerned. I am quite unable to condense my remarks and at the same time deal fully with the provisions of the Bill. I am absolutely at a loss to intelligently discuss questions of such magnitude in the limited time at my disposal. 11652 JYF 0 0 EARLE, John Senator Earle - If you say anything worth listening to, your time may be extended. 11652 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Whether my remarks are interesting or not shall not be decided by a vote of the Senate. The offer of an extension of time by Senator Earle and the party of which he is a member, and which has forced us to deal with the Bill under the conditions to which I have referred, will not receive my favorable consideration. I am not complaining of the new standing order, as all through life it has been my endeavour to adapt myself to new circumstances, and make the best of new conditions. The Wheat Pool was brought into existence by the Hughes Government, to assist the producers of Australia. The Hughes Government has changed its personnel so frequently that I am doubtful as to which Government I am referring to. I was a member of the Fisher Government during 1914-15, and of a Hughes Government during 1915-16, and I believe it was during the latter period that the Government brought the Wheat Pool into existence. The predominant reason for its establishment was scarcity of freight, and the possibility of vessels coming to our shores being seriously reduced in number, with the result that the farmers would be left with huge stocks of wheat on hand. In those days, when we had good government, Providence blessed us with good seasons; and the Wheat Pool was established to secure to the farmer what was then considered a fair price for his produce, which was at that time abundant. We had to face some troubles in forming such a huge Pool, and in financing it. I desire to give full credit to the financial institutions of the country, the private banking concerns. When they realized the enormous proportions of this new project they did not fail to appreciate that it might eventually interfere with their interests, yet they met us in a spirit which, permitted us to finance it But when it was discovered that our first overdraft would amount to about £8,000,000, and when arrangements to cope with that overdraft were being made, the financial concerns, realizing that we were short of the necessary money by some millions sterling, were quite prepared to take a perfectly legitimate advantage of the situation, and to increase their rate of interest. However, the Commonwealth Government arranged otherwise. 11652 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - No ! 11652 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I am speaking of what I know, and I do not desire to be interrupted by the Minister. Thanks to the fact that the Commonwealth Government has a banking institution of its own behind it, the rate of interest was kept at the original mark. These matters are well worth considering at a time when the Federal Parliament is dealing with a proposal to extend the operations of the various Pools. Senator Russell claims that the continuation of the Wheat Pools is not desired for any reason except that it is necessary that the authorities concerned shall be given sufficient time to complete contracts already entered into. If the wheat scheme has proved a huge success, so far as the primary producers are concerned; if, indeed, it has not merely given them a vast sum of money, but has actually and literally saved them, why should the Government, which claims to be the special and peculiar representative of the primary producer, make no effort to secure an extension of the Wheat Pools beyond the very short period set forth in the Bill? So far as my objection to this measure is concerned it will be based chiefly upon the fact that the Pools are not to be continued for all time for the benefit of primary producers, but are to be continued only for the assistance of big interests. The smaller interests, and the whole community in relation to the cost of living, are to be ignored. The Government has entered into no contracts to alter the conditions bearing down upon the rank and file of working men to-day; the latter are neglected, and' it is merely the big interests which are to be looked after in the Bill. I am quite aware, of course, that the Government has no constitutional power to deal with the other interests just indicated. But the Government could very quickly and easily have secured the necessary power. As soon as the armistice was signed, or at any period during the peace negotiations, the Government, if it had truly desired to conserve the best interests of the community, could have called Parliament together, and it could have gone to the people for the necessary power to enable it to adequately meet the needs of the community in relation to the cost of living. And, by the date on which this present measure was introduced, those necessary powers could have been conferred. However, that course of action was not taken. Senator Russell seemed to think that because the Wheat Pools have showed a profit on the whole series of transactions they may be said to be a huge success. It evidently gives him satisfaction to think that all the criticisms levelled at himself during the period of his Ministerial control may be said to have been swept aside because there is a sum on the right side of the ledger. Senator Russell holds the opinion that, no matter what has been said regarding bad management, ineptitude, and lack of business foresight, the Wheat Pools have proved a success, because there is a credit 'balance, and there is still unsold wheat on hand. I cannot understand that method of reasoning. I fail to see why, when the Minister was describing the success of the wheat scheme as a whole, he could not supply all the facts indicating the full extent of its success. It is not merely that the £18,000,000 overdraft has been met, and that there are some millions of bushels of wheat still in hand. The Minister was very vague with respect to the stocks still in hand. The wheat in the stacks is represented, on paper, as being equal to the quantity of wheat delivered into the stacks. But mice and Tats and weevils have destroyed great stocks. In addition to those factors there is the possibility that the total shown on paper has never actually reached the stacks. We are living in a business community. My idea of the business methods of the community is that those methods aim entirely at making money anyhow - honestly or otherwise. The quantity of wheat shown in the books of the Wheat Board as having been delivered into the stacks may never have actually reached the stacks. 11653 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - That is fraud, not business. 11653 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Exactly ! That is a dishonest business method, and since I have not the absolute proofs, nor - if I possessed them - the time to prove cases of fraud, I shall leave that phase of the subject to 'be dealt with when the full history of the Wheat Pools come3 to be written. 11653 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I am not responsible for the management of the stacks. 11653 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - Hear, hear ! 11653 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I do not care who is responsible; but, if I had my way, a Minister in the Commonwealth Government would be responsible for each one of the Pools in existence. The Government of which I was a member entered into arrangements with the various wheat States, but if the Commonwealth Constitution had permitted us to conduct the whole business alone, the scheme would have proved much more effective and efficient than the present system of divided control. A Minister of the Crown in New South Wales recently made certain grave charges before a Royal Commission, which charges did not amount to much, after all, except that a certain individual was shown to have been given a contract involving over £500,000 in money, without being required to put up one shilling by way of deposit. Senator Russell may say that the Commonwealth Government is not in any way responsible for that, and that it is purely a State matter. The Commonwealth Government cannot refuse to share its responsibility for unwise business transactions of that kind. Here was a deal which enabled one man to secure the use of some £500,000 worth of Commonwealth and State property; he was given the sole right to exploit the Eastern markets in relation to that property- 11654 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator Pratten - It belongs to the farmers. 11654 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - What was done was dishonest to the farmers. But, notwithstanding the ravages of mice and weevil, and the waste due to inefficient management, the farmer is still in a much better position under the wheat scheme than he would have been without it; that is to say, had his produce been subject to the ravages of private enterprise in connexion with commissions when wheat was cheap. One very prominent man connected with the wheat trade has assured me that the losses sustained on account of the ravages of weevil and mice are nothing as compared with the losses sustained on account of the commission which private buyers used to get. If that be so - and I am inclined to think that it is a fact - and if a better method of handling our primary products is within reach, the Commonwealth Government, as representing the farmers and the people of Australia, should not withhold their hands for a single day. They should unquestionably adopt that improved method. It is a sad reflection upon the people of Australia, that this Parliament does not possess the power to do this at the present time. Under the War Precautions Act, which has been subjected to a good deal of criticism from time to time, the Government intrusted with the conduct of the war was vested with power to do whatever it willed to do. But if that Statute had not been enacted it would still have been the inherent power of any Government - when the nation was either threatened with war, or was actually at war - to do whatever they deemed it necessary to do for the protection of this country. In other words, the Executive Government of Australia could, in time of war, without the aid of the War Precautions Act, have done all that it did under that Statute. Our constitutional powers in this connexion were first called into question when the Commonwea.th Government fixed the price of bread. Certain business persons were not content to allow us to insure that the people should obtain bread at a reasonable price. To them it did not matter that our granaries were overflowing, or that we had been blessed bv Providence with the most bountiful seasons. Immediately the Government fixed the price of bread, certain persons engaged in that industry contested the validity of our powers. The case soon after came before the High Court, but it was not until the 13th May, 1916, that the decision of that tribunal was forthcoming. The whole of the delay experienced was due to the fact that our Constitution was then in exactly the condition in which we find it to-day. The decision of the High Court was' practically that the question whether it was necessary to fix the price of bread in order to enable us to conduct the war successfully was one for the Executive alone to determine. If the Cabinet said that it was necessary to do so, it had' a right to fix the price. That decision on the part of the highest legal tribunal in this country confirmed the opinion we had previously entertained. Subsequently the operations of government in this connexion were vastly extended. Coming back to the Wheat Pool, I unhesitatingly affirm that during the period it has been in existence much valuable experience has been gained. For example, we have learned how to conserve the wheat during good seasons with as little damage as possible. As the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) has pointed out, we were confronted, shortly after the establishment of the Pool, with a mice plague of unparalleled magnitude, owing to the huge storage of wheat which had been effected in various portions of this country. But an easy method for coping with this pest, and thus keeping the stacks free of it, was very soon discovered. What has since happened in regard to our wheat? Senator Russell did not tell us what he expected the whole profit of the Pool to be, He has withheld from the people of Australia much information, under the plea that he did not wish to advantage the dealers in wheat scrip. I say, here and now, that there never should have been any dealings in wheat scrip. As soon as the Wheat Pool was established upon a fair basis, the farmer should have been paid the full price for his grain. 11655 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I said that I refused to guess at the quantity of wheat in Stock for the benefit of scrip investors. 11655 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - If the Vice-President of the Executive Council views the matter in that way he is entitled to do so. But my own opinion is that it should not be necessary for him to guess at the quantity of wheat in stock - he should know it from actual returns. I trust that the Minister responsible for the management of the Pool will in future keep the public so informed of what is happening that it will be impossible for fortunes to be made by slumping the market to-day and causing it to rise tomorrow. The people of this country want straightforward dealing in connexion with this matter. If the Minister in the exercise of his discretion withholds certain information from the public, how can he be assured that some officer in his Department will not disclose that information to outsiders? 11655 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - In my speech I gave to honorable senators the fullest information regarding the Pool, and I explained that I could not give certain figures because we were not in possession of them. 11655 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The Minister's remark, I take it, goes to prove the truth of my allegation that no matter what quantity of wheat is credited in the books of the Department as being in the wheat stacks, there is no guarantee that it is there. I am not blaming the Minister personally for withholding information from the public. But he must be aware that wheat scrip has been so used as to allow fortunes to be made out of the manner in which the market has been manipulated. In the matter of withholding information, need I point to the Georgeson case in New South Wales? An investigation into certain charges made in relation to that particular con- tract has just. been finished, and if Mr. Georgeson was a lucky speculator who took the great risk of buying from the New South Wales Government more than £500,000 worth of wheat without paying a single shilling deposit upon it, and of securing the Eastern market for himself, I am not going to say that he has done anything dishonorable. Far from it. Yet, not only does the evidence disclose, but the finding of the Judge shows, that on the 1st February last a certain telegram was in the possession of the Minister who was in control of the Wheat Board in New South Wales, that that telegram was submitted to the Chamber of Commerce and to various individuals in Sydney somewhere about the 5th February, but that it did not find its way to the Wheat Board until the 20th of February - the day upon which the Minister entered into the contract with Mr. Georgeson. That telegram disclosed that there was a drought, with a consequent shortage of rice, in Japan. It did not require a very intelligent man to know that if there was a shortage of rice in Japan it would be necessary to make good that shortage with wheat. Nor did it need a very smart business man to know if he could purchase £500,000 worth of wheat from the New South Wales Government, and obtain access to the Eastern market, the risk he would incur in purchasing that wheat would not be a very great one. The Department had the information to which I have referred from Mr. Suttor, its representative in Japan, on the 1st February last. That information was sent by telephone to certain public bodies in Sydney, but it was not till the 20th February that it reached the Wheat Board. Secrecy of that kind is calculated to create in the minds of the farmers but one impression, namely, that those who were responsible for the management of this Pool were not much concerned about securing for them the very best possible price. I venture to say that if the whole of the operations of the Pool were analyzed it would be found that there has been a deliberate attempt to thwart the intention of the Government by regarding the interests of the farmers as of secondary importance. Let me refer to the manner in which Australian wheat was sold to Great Britain time after time. I can quite understand that persons sentimentally inclined might say that when Britain was under the stress of war, and when U-boats were blockading and threatening to starve her people, we should not have cavilled at the price at which we sold our wheat to the Mother Land. I am not going to cavil at the price now, hut I venture to say that, even under conditions like those to which I refer, the British people might well have been called upon to pay the same price for Australian wheat as their Government were prepared to pay for British-grown wheat. 11656 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Or for Canadian wheat. 11656 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - They paid full market value for Canadian wheat, which was produced within six days' steam of the Home Country. 11656 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Can you state the price paid for Canadian wheat? 11656 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Yes. At the time of which I am speaking it realized about 9s. per bushel, whereas the Australian farmer was getting practically only a little more than 4s. a bushel. 11656 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Canadian wheat went up as high as 10s. per bushel. 11656 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - If, as the honorable senator says, Great Britain was getting a bargain in Australian wheat at the price mentioned, why did she not take more, so that it would not be now lying rotting in the stacks? 11656 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The difficulty about the shipping was one reason, but that should not be an argument that our farmers should not expect, as Senator Millen put it the other day, when speaking on another question, the world's parity for their produce. 11656 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator Lynch - If you had been in the position of the British Government, what would you have done? 11656 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I would have done what the British Government did - the best for the people they were governing. If the Australian Government had acted in like manner, and had done their best for the Australian people, we would have had a great deal more money with which to meet our war loan obligations than we have at the present time. The sale of huge quantities of Australian wheat at about 4s. per bushel at a time when the British Government had fixed the price of British-grown wheat as high as 10s. per bushel was a bad business deal from the -stand-point of the Australian farmer. It is all very well to say that we get credit for helping the Mother Country when she was in danger, by letting her have our wheat for half the price she was paying to her own people. No doubt this was splendid, and our farmers have stood up to it magnificently. But it was bad business to call upon the Australian farmer - because, after all, it was the farmers and not the Australian public - to bear the entire ' burden, for while his wheat was being sold at half its price, he was being compelled to pay at exorbitant rates for all the necessaries of life, and had to pay excessive freights on his wheat. Some time ago I asked what was the cost, in 1914, of carrying wheat from Australia to Great Britain in privately-owned vessels, and the Minister's reply was that the freights ranged from 19s. 6d. to 32s. 6d. per tan. During the war this Government, with the deliberate intention of decreasing the margin between the price which the British people were paying for Australian wheat and' that which the British Government were paying for British wheat, increased freights in their own vessels to £7 10s. per ton. I shall not read the whole of the questions which I put to the Minister on that occasion, as they appear in Hansard, and my statements may thus be verified. Under the operation of this scheme the farmer who delivered his wheat in good order and condition gets only the proclaimed price. If 1,000 bags of first class wheat was destroyed by the mice or weevil in another State, the farmer who delivered first class wheat would have to bear his share of the loss. 11656 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - No; each State bears its, own losses. 11656 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Then I shall put it this way. If a farmer in the north-west of New South Wales, at Narrabri, for instance, delivered wheat in first class condition, and if damage were done to wheat at Goulburn, the Narrabri farmer would have to bear his share of the loss incurred by the Pool. 11657 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Within the State, yes. 11657 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Is that a fair business arrangement for the efficient farmer? If there had been honest dealing with the primary producer, his wheat should have been paid for on delivery, and any losses incurred would have been borne by the whole of the people of Australia. 11657 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - I suggested that last week, when you were talking about cheap bread. 11657 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I know that my speeches always start Senator de Largie's active brain working, but, unfortunately, he sits so closely behind the Government that for most of his time here it remains inactive. When Senator de Largie talks to me about wanting cheap bread, I say that we could just as well let the people of Australia have bread at 3d. per 2-lb. loaf, and pay the farmer full value for his wheat, as pay the iron manufacturer a bonus on his product. The point I am attempting to make is that, owing to the losses that have been incurred in the working of the Wheat Pools, the wheat producer has been suffering more than any other section of the community. It may be that the Minister will say that finally the farmer will get full market value, but to that argument I reply that if, owing to hard conditions, a farmer is obliged to sell his scrip, he will not get full market value for his produce. Let me now give a few quotations showing the price of wheat in Great Britain. I go to the actual source for this information, so that my figures may not be questioned. In the House of Commons Hansard for the16th March, 1917,I find the following remarks made by Mr. Outhwaite: - I have seen it stated that Australian farmers last year got about 4s. a bushel, or 32s. a quarter, for their wheat, and I am interested to know why the Australian farmers are getting 32s. a quarter while the British farmers have been guaranteed from 64s. to 80s. a quarter? I want to get the price that is being paid to the Australian farmer, in order to compare it with what the British farmer is extorting. 11657 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The honorable senator knows that statement to be incorrect. 11657 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I do not want to quote the whole of the House of Commons Hansard on the subject, and the Government would take fine care that I did not do so if I attempted it. 11657 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The honorable senator knows that the figure was 4s. 9d. and not 4s. a bushel. 11657 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Senator Russell has himself just said that it was not 4s. 9d. per bushel, but that there was a possibility that it would reach 4s. 9d. per bushel if all went well, having regard to freight, mice, and everything else. I shall establish the correctness of these figures beyond dispute by quoting the answers of responsible Ministers in Great Britain to questions asked in the House of Commons. Honorable senators wil1 recognise, therefore, that any figures I use are submitted only after complete investigation. 11657 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Will the . honorable senator repeat the prices he has just quoted ? 11657 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - Senator de Largie will find them in Hansard, and in. view of the fact that I have only sixty minutes in which to speak, he will excuse me for not repeating them now. From the House of Commons Hansard of the 28th March, 1917, I quote the following: - The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping Control (Sir Leo Chiozza Money), in reply'to a question asked by Mr. Outhwaite,re the freight charged on a bushel of wheat from Australia at Blue-Book rates, stated - " My right honorable friend asked me to answer this question. An exact equivalent cannot be stated, but the liners are paid at the rate of 70s. per ton, which is calculated to be equivalent to Blue-Booh rates. This may be taken to be, roughly, a rate of1s. l0?d. per bushel." Mr. Outhwaite. Can the honorable gentleman state the rate at which wheat is now being imported from Australia? Sir L.. Chiozza Money. Yes;1s. l0?d. per bushel is the figure for which my honorable friend asks. Mr. Outhwaite. Is wheat being imported at the rate which has been given? Sir. L. Chiozza Money. The answer is in the affirmative. That is the rate. I am submitting a sufficient number of these quotations to the Senate to show that my authority for the statements made is the Mansard report of proceedings in the House of Commons. On the 26th April, 1917, 1 find the following:- Mr. Outhwaite asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that through having control of shipping, the Government has been able to compel Australian farmers to accept 3!)s. per quarter for the wheat .purchased from them on which freight charge to England is 15s. per quarter, and can he say why, under these circumstances, the Government has not compelled British farmers to sell wheat at less than the maximum price, which has been fixed at 78s. per quarter? Captain Bathurst. - The figures given in the question are inaccurate. I may add that there is no relation between the price agreed to be paid for Australian wheat under a contract made several months ago, and the price at which farmers are now compelled to sell homegrown wheat. I quote the following from the House of Commons Hansard report for the 30th April, 1917:- Mr. Outhwaite asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the .fact that the Government has acquired wheat from Australian farmers at 39s. 9d a quarter, with freightage to this country of 15s. a quarter, he will take immediate steps to reduce the maximum price at which British farmers may sell wheat, from 78s. a quarter to some figure more closely approximating to the cost of Australian wheat landed here? Captain Bathurst. - I have nothing to add to the answer given to the honorable member on Thursday last (26th April, 1917). Mr. Outhwaite. Is the honorable gentleman aware that he did not answer this question on Thursday at all? He said the figures were incorrect. Is he aware that the first figure is got from the statement made by the president of the Victorian Farmers Union dealing with prices given in Australia, and the other figure is given from the front bench? Captain Bathurst. - I am informed by the Wheat Commission that the figure is incorrect; but it is immaterial whether it is correct or incorrect. Questions of this character are greatly to be deprecated, and render the negotiations for the purchase of wheat in other countries somewhat delicate and difficult. Mr. Outhwaite. Is the honorable gentleman aware that his attention is drawn to the facts in this question for the purpose of showing that we are paying too high a price for British wheat, and has nothing to do with the price we pay abroad, and that we are allowing the British farmer to extort twice as much as we give the Australians ? Captain Bathurst. - May I take the opportunity of saying that there is nothing whatever to show that there is any disparity, considering the altered conditions, between the price paid for this wheat and British wheat. The contract is one which was made several months ago, when the conditions in the world generally were wholly different from what they are to-day. If the Minister, or any other person, is disposed to say that these figures are incorrect let me say that ordinary well-informed people must know that, while our wheat was sold at from 32s. to 40s. per quarter, the price paid by the British Government went as high as 78s. .per quarter, or practically 10s. per bushel. I quote the following from the House of Commons Hansard report for 16th July, 1917 :- Mr. Lough asked the President of the Board of Trade whether quantities of wheat purchased by his Department are now lying in Australia owing to the impossibility of obtaining freight; if so, what is the total quantity, when was it .purchased, and what still remains to be shipped; -whether this wheat is all paid for, and, if so, at what .price; whether it is still in good condition, and if he anticipates it will be fit for human food when ultimately brought to this country? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Bridgeman). - Purchases of 500,000 and 3,000,000 -tons of Australian wheat were made on behalf of Great Britain, France, and Italy, under contracts dated 3rd October, 1910 and 4th December, 1916, at the prices of 32s. and 38s. respectively, free on board. The whole of the 500,000 tons has been paid for and shipped; of the 3,000,000 tons, part only has been shipped, and under the terms of the contract, full payment is not yet due for the -whole amount. The wheat is in good condition, and it is anticipated that it will be fit for human consumption on arrival in this country..... On the 24th July the following statement is reported to have been made by Mr. Runciman : - observe from newspaper reports that wheat can be purchased in the United States at about 10s. per bushel, or 80s. a quarter- We were bound, therefore, to make very large purchases in Australia for our own security in regard to our food supplies, and we did that on generous terms to the Australian Government and the Australian farmers, and both got something out of it. Certainly, the Australian Government got something out of it, and they were entitled to do so. There was still another statement made in the House of Commons by Mr. Runciman, who, I think I am correct in saying, was a Minister at that time. I have a recollection of some pleasant remarks which Mr. Hughes had to make about him when he came back here. Mr. Runciman is reported in the Hansard of the House of Commons for the 24th July, 1917, to have said: - ( It is a most remarkable fact that ever since the Government fixed the carriage of wheat across the Atlantic at Blue-Book rates, the price of wheat has steadily gone up. As freights went clown the loaf went up. That was duc to the fact that the American grower, and, possibly, the merchant, succeeded in making far larger profits than ever they anticipated; undoubtedly they have made large profits out of the privations of Europe. We are not in the happy position of having the American Government in full sympathy with us in this and other matters, 'and' I observe from newspaper reports that a fixed price has been made, and that wheat can be purchased in the United States at something over 2 dollars a bushel - 2.25 dollars or 2.30 dollars - that is to> say, about 10s. a bushel, or 80s. a quarter. Without occupying any more of my time, which is so valuable now, I think that I have already .proved to the satisfaction of every one what I set out to prove, and that is that the Australian farmer; through the war, received only half the world's parity for his wheat. 11659 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - He was also further away from the world's market than were the producers of other countries. 11659 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Senator Gardiner has left out a number of other factors. He is dodging them. 11659 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I am 'not dodging them; but, under the conditions under which debates are now conducted in the Senate, one has not more than time to gallop through what he desires to say. I find that Elder, Smith, and Company have stated that - The freight of wheat to San Francisco is 05s. per ton (5 per cent, of which goes to the Commonwealth as commission), equals 2s. 7d. a bushel. The Australian farmers' wheat is sold through a shipping firm, who quote .a high price for carrying it, and 5. per cent, of this goes to the Commonwealth Government. 11659 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - No; to the Australian Wheat Boards of the different States concerned. 11659 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I have quoted the statement of Elder, Smith, and Company, and I am glad to have the Minister's indorsement that 5 per cent, goes to the Wheat Pool. 11659 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - One and a quarter per cent, is retained by the Commonwealth and 3$ per cent, is given to the State Wheat Boards. 11659 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I find that on the 15th March Mr. Outhwaite stated that British farmers were guaranteed 64s. to SOs. per quarter, or from Ss. to 10s. per bushel. On the 24th of July Mr. Lough -stated- that Australian wheat was bought at 32s. and 38s. a quarter, and it was understood that freight was 13s* a quarter. The Minister says that the fact that there is a surplus from the Wheat Pool is a proof of its success. The Minister's statement that there is a surplus is a proof of its success in spite of, I will not say the bad management, but the lack of experience, which had to be gained in the management of the Pool before it became -successful. But I have made, the quotations I .have given to the Senate to show that it is to the farmers, and to them alone, that credit is due for sending wheat to feed the British people, and that they gave that wheat at half its price, and did so without grumbling. Now that that wheat has gone, and the war is. over, the Government are asking to extend the Pool over another harvest or two, but they are not proposing to protect the farmer from private speculators. The farmers are as large purchasers in the world's markets of boots, clothing, arid other necessaries of life as are the members of any other section of the community. Whilst the Government are proposing to extend the Wheat Pool until their contracts are completed, they do not make any statement of their intention to extend in other directions; for the benefit of the farmer, what has proved to be a good system of bargaining with, their wheat and other produce. I do not wish to leave out of consideration one very. important factor. Just before it was my good fortune to leave the Government, with a view to protecting the farmer quite a number of ships were purchased by the Government to carry abroad the produce of farmers and other persons. A high price was paid for those ships, as they could not be purchased otherwise at the time. But it never was intended by the Government which purchased them that, once they came into their hands, they were to be used for profiteering purposes in just the same way as privately-owned ships were used. I may remind honorable senators that before the war the rate of freight on wheat from Australia to London was from 6£d. to less than 10½d. per bushel or from 19s. to 323. per ton. What are we to say of a Government which, without any very considerable additional cost in the handling of their ships, charged the Wheat Pool, and that is to say the Australian farmer, as high as 150s. per ton, or about 4s. per bushel, freight on wheat to London? I invite the attention of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Pool to this matter, and he «an give me an answer one way or tie other as to the exact figures when he comes to reply to the debate. The figures will show that the profits on carrying the farmers' wheat to London by the vessels which the first Hughes- Government purchased paid for those vessels, and thus the people who paid for them were the farmers. 11660 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - No ; the bulk of the profits were made from .back loadings. Wheat is not a very payable cargo for any ship. 11660 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The Vice-President of the Executive Council has gained a considerable amount of experience in connexion with the Wheat Pool; but it is idle for him to say that wheat is not a profitable cargo, when private shipping companies carried wheat at 19s. per ton before the war and, under his management of the Wheat Pool, the freight rose to £7 10s. per ton. 11660 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I say that the bulk of the profits made by the Commonwealth steam-ships were made from back loadings. 11660 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - It seems that I must bring documentary evidence to prove everything I say. T am in a position to quote a return showing the wheat shipped by vessels of the Commonwealth up to the 25th November, 1918. I am sorry that I have not later figures ta quote, but since that time the freights have been increased. The following is the statement: - I have quoted the return, and it is a complete answer to the statement made by the Minister. 11662 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Can you quote the rates charged by the private shipping companies, and tell us whether they were as low, or lower? 11662 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I have always looked upon Senator de Largie as a relentless and hard-hearted man, and when he asks me to quote more than I have already done, during my limited time, I absolutely refuse. I find it quite impossible to even approach the question intelligently in the' time allowed. What have I put these figures before the Senate for? To prove that the Wheat Pool has shown a profit, and that the farmers of Australia have supplied the people of Great Britain with wheat at about half the cost at which it could be obtained in that country. The Commonwealth Government not only paid for the ships they purchased in three years, but they charged the farmers 150s. per ton freight when the ruling rate before the war was 19s. per ton. The Government have been telling the farmers that they have made a good deal. That is Senator Russell's idea of a good deal. He pays no regard to the cost to the primary producer. 11662 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - All the profits of the Pool go to the. farmers. I never spoke ofprofits. 11662 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - I wonder if it is too late now for the Government to fix a fair rate at which to carry farmers' wheat. I do not say that it should be based on pre-war rates, but wheat should be carried at a reduced price, and the profits should go into the Pool to enable the farmers to participate in them. The farmers have to pay the world's parity for everything they use, and why should they not be allowed to receive full value for their produce? Having neglected, owing to lack of business aptitude, to secure the world's price for the farmers' produce, the Government should charge only a fair freight for grain, and give the balance to the people who have earned it. I find that I' have left this important question practically untouched, because there are a lot of important matters in connexion with the Pool that should be dealt with. What happened in the seeking for these extended powers by the Government in another place? The Minister who introduced the Bill quoted the opinions of an array of distinguished barristers regarding the powers of the Commonwealth to act in this way, but I have the presumption to differ from the opinions of those distinguished barristers. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, this legislation will remain in operation only until one firm with sufficient capital behind it appeals, when it will be found to be wholly unconstitutional. In introducing the measure in another place the Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) endeavoured to justify his action, and he would not have been driven to that extremity if he had not grave doubts concerning its legality. Seeing that the Government doubt their constitutional powers, and that they believe that these concerns can be successfully carried on by the Commonwealth, it would be better to ask the people of Australia to grant them the powers they need. 11662 10000 0 0 GIVENS, Thomas The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. 11662 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Shut out! and wool, dairy produce, flax, and other matters that need attention, untouched. Extension of time granted, on motion by SenatorReid. 11662 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I will accept an extension of one hour. I cannot touch the remaining subjects in half-an-hour. 11662 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The motion is for an extension of half-an-hour. Under the Standing Orders, a longer extension cannot be granted. 11662 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - I decline to proceed. 11662 K1J New South Wales 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN . - I regret that Senator Gardiner has not seen fit to accept an extension of time in terms of the motion moved by Senator Reid. I am entirely in sympathy with him, and realize that it is impossible to deal with an important Bill in such a limited time as is allowed by the new standing order. During the war period the Government practically controlled the whole of the import and export trade of the Commonwealth, as well as a good deal of its interna] 'trade, and their activities extended over most of the important commercial undertakings within the Commonwealth. The transactions of the Government represented, approximately, £400,000,000 sterling, and this is the first time that Parliament has been asked for approval or disapproval of, what has been going on and what is proposed next year. The Senate should, and will, give attention to some of the weaknesses of governmental control of commercial activities, as evidenced in the past. 1 believe the Senate will endeavour to make some improvements, so that the lessons of the past may be of practical use to us. The Bill proposes to extend the control over dairy produce, wool, skins, flax, sugar, and wheat until varying specific dates next year. I understand that contracts have been made in regard to these commodities, and that the legal luminaries the Government called to their counsel have said that the measure will be perfectly constitutional. I notice the absence from this Bill of any attempt to control metals, and I hope no further control is intended. It is "to be hoped that governmental control of this very important primary production will end on the expiration of the War Precautions Regulations. I believe a silent vote on this matter will condone a good deal 'of what we hope will be rectified in the future in connexion with our commercial activities of the last four years. This is the most important measure we have had before us for the last two years. The Minister, in introducing it told us that it was really five Bills in one, and that each division was a Bill in itself. I am sorry that my time is so limited, owing to the passage of the new standing order, and I may have to ask the Senate for an extension to enable me to fully analyze some of the important provisions of the Bill. I regard the measure as one which has been brought in by the Government to keep faith with Parliament. The explicit promise was made, in connexion with the discussion of the extension of the War Precautious Regulations, that before very long the Government would ask for parliamentary authority to extend the powers which up to then had been granted and exercised under the War Precautions Act. The difficulties of -the Government have been very great. There has been the enormous factor of the war.. There has been the long and dangerous transit to our overseas markets. We remember the first days of the war, when the outlook was black, and when some of us, perhaps, were in a nervy condition ; and, indeed, when, possibly, a panic was not far distant. The conception of Wheat Pools and of Government control in wartime was, in my opinion, sound. We were a great primary producing country. We had raw products to sell - far more than we required for home consumption. W«e had the question of finance to consider. We were compelled to play, at that stage, for safety and caution. We were groping in the dark. We had faith in our cause, but the end could not be foreseen. All those factors are a condonation of what the Government has done in regard to its various controls during the war. Australia has come out of her difficulties fairly well. True, we have had unofficial dictators, some tyranny, a great deal of secrecy, and much incompetence. Administration has not always been satisfactory. A case could be established, in connexion with Government activities, based upon the contention that we have sold cheap and bought dear. But I do not propose to be wise after the event, and to be hypercritical in connexion with the tremendous and unforeseen difficulties arising from the war. I hope, though, that as the result of our being able to enter upon much freer discussion now that the war is over, the blunders of the past will be rectified, and that many hard-learned lessons of the past will be applied to improve present and future administration. Of all the activities of the Government, Senator Russell has rightly remarked that wheat control has been the most unique. Wheat constitutes the vastest bulk of our produce; it requires the greatest amount of tonnage to transport; it is the most perishable of all the controlled commodities. It is liable to pests; and the Government was caught, when the pests developed, with primitive storage arrangements. I arn sorry that the Minister, in his speech, still continued upon that optimistic plane where he has all along dwelt in hi- relations with wheat control. He was still somewhat indefinite and inconclusive; and his figures, unless subjected to very careful analysis, do not lead us far. I am sorry that the Minister did not see fit, two years ago, when we sustained such big losses as an outcome of our primitive storage arrangements, to take the country into his confidence, and strike a pessimistic note. 11664 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - All the complaints have been that I was too pessimistic. 11664 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Had the truth been told, the farmers - who are the owners of the wheat - would have been prepared for the losses which must surely arise. In addition to those losses, there have been abnormal expenses per bushel. None of the Ministerial statements issued upon the subject has even hinted at the abnormal expenses incurred in connexion with the handling and marketing of our wheat. I propose to devote my speech upon these "five Bills in one" to some detailed analysis of the wheat position. I believe the farmers want to know where they are. Month after month, the press has been calling for some clarification of the position. I propose to show, so far as I am able, with the help of figures collected from various sources, what position the farmer is in at the present time. I shall attempt to show the statistical position in relation to wheat still held for sale. My figures lead me to the conclusion that we shall be at least 24,000,000 bushels short when the four Pools are cleared up, but we may be able to learn what the value of scrip really is. The abnormal losses, and the great expenses per bushel incurred in placing the wheat f.o.b., will show that the farmer's net return will amount to barely 4s. per bushel on the average of the four Pools. 11664 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You are a long way at sea. 11664 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - If the Minister will be patient I shall quote figures showing how I have arrived at that opinion. As a consequence of the unsatisfactory position from the stand-point of the farmer, wheat-growing is declining. I suggest that for the next two or three years li'beral treatment be given to the farmer, whose net return in connexion with the pooling operations of the Government, particularly as compared with the world's parity, is going to prove so disappointingly small. I have before me a mass of rather complicated figures. I desire to start in relation to a period which will synchronize with official statements made in connexion with the wheat scheme in another place, and with the issue of official figures by the Australian Wheat Board. At no other time in the history of the scheme can I synchronize the two; and the figures that I am about to quote will have to do with the period from about 23rd June to 2nd or 3rd July. In another place the Minister responsible stated, when explaining this Bill, that during the operations of the scheme there had been received for realization 468,000,000 bushels, or 13,430,000 tons. 11664 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I corrected that item of 13,000,000 tons. 11664 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I shall deal with that later. This statement agrees with those issued from time to time by the Wheat Board up to the 23rd June. That body supplied the information that the wheat received in the 1915-16 Pool, or the "A " Pool, was 163,374,000 bushels; in the 1916-17 Pool, or the " B " Pool, 138,275,000 bushels; in the 1917-18 Pool, or the " C " Pool, 103,342,000 bushels; and, in the 1918-19 Pool, or the "D" Pool, 64,796,000 -bushels; a grand total of 469,787,000 bushels. Those figures do not constitute quite the whole of the wheat grown in the Commonwealth. No doubt, a few million bushels have criss-crossed about the country, and have been retained for local consumption; but that grand total comprises all the wheat put into the Pools. The Minister stated in another place, on the 2nd July, that sales overseas by the Board have amounted to 6,050,000 tons, and that of this quantity there had been shipped 5,200,000 tons. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Watt) stated on 27th June that the amount of money involved in sales of wheat to the British Government was £30,333,000; that was, in regard to 500,000 and 3,000,000 tons of wheat. The value of the wheat delivered in respect of those contracts - the Acting Prime Minister said was £24,657,000, and the amount advanced over and above the value of wheat delivered to date is £5,676,000. According, then, to the Acting Prime Minister's statement, the amount of wheat yet to be delivered and paid for was approximately, 650,000 tons. The Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) stated on the 2nd July that there were 850,000 tens still to shiip. The Acting Prime Minister's statement referred only to the British Government's contracts; and, knowing that orders from other countries had been placed with the Australian Wheat Board, it is reasonable for me to assume that by that date there would have been another 100,000 tons sold, but not shipped and not paid for. To reconcile the statements of the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Attorney-General, however, I will assume that that tonnage is 200,000. I shall show, on the basis of those official figures, what a great discrepancy will be discovered upon the clean-up of the whole of the Pools. The most 'interesting point of all with those people who are interested in the wheat scheme is. how much wheat is there left to sell ? For the purpose of elucidating that, we must analyze operations from two stand-points; first, theoretically, the Wheat Board's figures; and, secondly, various statements made in Parliament, which I have repeated. The announcements of Mr. Groom have also included the statement that these were the figures after allowing for Commonwealth consumption of wheat to the end of the year. He said that after allowing for that item, we still had 2,000,000 tons for sale. That announcement was a few days afterwards confirmed by Mr. Pitt, the accountant, or secretary, of the Wheat Board, who said, in effect, that after the sale of 1,000,000 tons - the last - was made, if the British Government exercised its option over the 500.000 tons, there would only remain 500,000 in the Pool. The shippers' stocks of wheat and flour on 23rd June last, Wheat Board figures, were 147,808,000 bushels. The consumption of wheat in Australia to the end of the year, based on an average of 2J bushels per head, will be, according to Knibbs, 13,750,000 bushels. This quantity, deducted from that which was in the Pool on 23rd June, would leave 134,058,000 bushels. Now, Mr. Groom's figures are based on the assumption that there are 35 bushels of wheat in a ton, and if we accept the Acting Prime Minister's statement, that 650.000 tons have yet to be delivered to the British Government for payment received, the shippers' stocks of wheat and flour would be further reduced by 22,750,000 bushels. These quantities deducted from the 134,058,000 bushels would leave in the Pool, theoretically - after provision had been made for six months' local consumption - 111,308,000 bushels yet to be realized. The Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Groom), in introducing the Bill in another place, stated that we still had for sale 2,000,000 tons of wheat. After allowing for the 200,000 tons sold to various Governments, there is thus a discrepancy of 34,308,000 bushels between the quantity which, theoretically, ought to be in the Pool and- the quantity which the Minister says is still for sale. I think that the following table will make these calculations clearer: - In dealing with this theoretical deficiency, I propose to reply to Senator Russell in connexion with the correction which he made in his tonnage figures last Friday. Although Mr. Groom has based his calculations upon the assumption that 35 bushels of wheat will weigh a ton, those who know anything about the matter know that it takes 37J bushels to weigh a ton. I must, therefore, make a contingency allowance in connexion with these figures, and I propose to make that allowance, not 5,000,000, but 10,000,000 bushels, because Mr. Groom himself may have allowed for more than the actual bare requirements of the Commonwealth for the balance of the year. 11666 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The period dealt with by the honorable senator covers from 21st to 27th June. But shipments are going on busily every day, and new returns may completely alter the figures in respect to the operations of the Pool in the course of two or three days. 11666 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - The Minister's observation will not affect my figures in the slightest degree, because they are based on the statistics of the Federal Wheat Board up to 23rd June last. Further, I do not think that shipping is proceeding at such express speed as to materially interfere with them. I have reduced the theoretical deficiency - based on the statements which have already been made - of 34,500,000 bushels by a contingency allowance of 10,000,000 bushels, to 24,500,000 bushels. I am quite aware that on some of the crops there has been an increase of weight. But I am not now dealing with the profit to the Pool which must result -from that increase - an increase which will, perhaps, amount in all to nearly 4,000,000 bushels. Rather am I dealing with the actual losses which will be incurred in connexion with the administration of the Pool. As Senator Gardiner has pointed out, it may be that very many more certificates have been issued in connexion with the receipt of wheat at country railway stations than suffice to cover wheat which has actually been delivered there. That will be a loss to the Pool, and must eventually be a loss to the farmers of this country. It is interesting to endeavour to analyze in what States these losses are likely to occur. Senator Russell said that 3,821,000 bushels of the 1915-16 crop still remain in South Australia. Without questioning his statement in any way my information is that no South Australian wheat can be stacked for four years and remain in good condition at the end of that period. I prefer, therefore, to believe that this 3,821,000 bushels is represented 'by dust and refuse. 11666 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Why, the best stacks in Australia are to be found at Port Pirie. 11666 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - But they contain the wheat of other crops than that of 1915-16. South Australia has been particularly unfortunate in regard to shipping, in that she has not enjoyed the facilities -which .have been enjoyed by other States. However, as my time is limited, and as I desire to present a somewhat complex argument in which I must set out my figures consecutively, I shall be glad if the Minister will allow me to proceed without interruption. On the 1916-17 crop I estimate that there will be a loss in New South Wales of at least 6,000,000 bushels. As a matter of fact, I think that loss has been almost admitted. I believe that upon this crop there will be a loss in South Australia of 4,000,000 bushels. Upon the 1917-18 crop, which in New South Wales and South Australia has been considerably damaged bv weevil, I estimate a loss of 3,000,000 bushels in the former State, and of 2,000,000 in the latter. There will, of course, be some losses in Victoria. Those losses possibly, without allowing for any addition owing to the increased weight of the wheat will amount to anything up to 4,000,000 bushels in all in that State. So that the total losses on the figures which I have presented is 22,821,000 bushels. Assuming that there is none of the 1915-16 crop left, after these losses have been deducted, there would remain for realization 27,606,000 bushels of the 1916-17 crop, 39,407,000 bushels of the 1917-18 crop, and 57,974,000 bushels of the 1 918-19 crop, a total of 124,987,000 bushels. Of this quantity the British Government have to get 650,000 tons, which have been paid for, but which have not yet been delivered, so that on the figures which I have submitted the stocks available for sale will be 4,856,000 bushels of the 1916-17 crop, 39,407,000 bushels of the 1917-18 crop, and 57,974,000 bushels of the 1918-19 crop, or a total of 102,237,000 bushels. Now, I must deduct from this amount a certain quantity in order that the British Government may receive 37. bushels per ton instead of the ' 35 bushels estimated by Mr. Groom. When I have done this I think that the quantity of wheat remaining to be sold at the time these statements were made would amount approximately to 100,000,000 bushels. A good deal has been said both inside and outside of Parliament about the gambling in wheat scrip which has been proceeding, on the Stock Exchanges of Australia. I am in full agreement with Senator- Gardiner that no gambling ought to have been permitted in this scrip. I do not agree with Senator Russell that the publication of information in connexion with the Wheat Pool is calculated to play into the hands of wheat scrip speculators. 11667 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I made no such statement. I said that I gave all the information that I could, but that I declined to guess the state of affairs when certain figures were not in my possession. 11667 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - A month or two ago - even last year, I believe - statements were made by the Minister to the effect that most of the wheat scrip was in second hands, and that gambling in it was proceeding- gambling which he did not intend to encourage. 11667 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think that the honorable senator misses my point. As the responsible Minister connected with the Pool, if I say that I believe a certain quantity of wheat is in stock the public will accept that statement as authoritative. Consequently, I am not going to do that. 11667 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - The Sydney Morning Herald of last Thursday published the State scrip figures up to Wednesday last. These were made up by the State Wheat Board office', and show that in New South Wales, for all the Pools which have been established, there is not 25 per cent, of the wheat scrip in second hands - that is to say, in the hands of speculators. Various estimates have been made by brokers and others, but nobody seems to know accurately what is the position. However, I think it . is fair to assume, on the figures I have quoted, that in New South Wales considerably more than 50 per cent. of the scrip issued in connexion with all the Pools still remains in the hands of the original owners, and that considerably less than 50 per cent, has found . its way into the hands of speculators. . Whatever we may now say is the value of the scrip, the point is that it is of far more importance . to the farmers than, the speculators, because they hold the bulk of it. In analyzing the scrip position, I have taken the average net market rates as on the 14th July of this year, and my calculation as to the total value of scrip in all the Pools has been arrived at on the following basis: - New South Wales : - " A " Pool, 1. 7-16d. ; " B,"1½d. ; "C." 9¾ d ; " D," 6d. Victoria -"A,"1d.; "B,"7¾d.; "C,"10d.; "D," 4d. South Australia-" A," 7-16d. ; " B," 3d.; "C," 9d.; " D," 4d. Western Australia- " A," Id; " B,"1½d.; " C," Sd. ; " D," 3½d. These are the net prices and have been arrived at after deducting 4d. in the case of New South Wales, for freight in respect of " B " and " C " Pools; 4£d. railage in Victoria in respect of " B " and " C " Pools; and 2¼d. freight for "B" and "C" Pools in South Australia. A calculation of the money that will be required to redeem the scrip at these net figures on 14th July of this year gives a sum of £8,443,418. If there were only 100,000,000 bushels of wheat in the Wheat Pools actually saleable on the dates at which these figures were compiled, I think we could assume that the balance in the 1916-17 Pool, 4,856,000 bushels, would realize 4s. 6d. per bushel net, or a total of £1,092,600; that the 39,407,000 bushels' in the 1917-18 Pool would realize 5s. ; or a total of £9,851,750; and that the 55,737,000 bushels in the 1918-19 Pool would return 5s. 6d. net, or a total of £15,327,675, giving a total for the 100,000,000 bushels of £26,272,025. The overdraft on 23rd June of this year was £18,335,000, which, deducted from the amount realizable on the basis stated for the 100,000,000 bushels, would show a credit of £7,937,025. The net value of the wheat scrip on 14th July I have shown to be £8,443,418. Therefore, on these figures, the loss in market value of the wheat scrip on 14th July would appear to be £506,393, without taking into account any further expenditure. I believe there is a good deal of evidence available to buttress the calculations which I have made. For instance, although we hear of high prices being paid for wheat, we must not forget the heavier expenditure incurred. For the "A" crop the expenditure, as spread over the whole crop, is 7.3d., without allowing for railway freight. For the "B" Pool, the rate is 11.18d. ; for the " C " Pool, 9.8d. ; and for the " D," 5.38d. per bushel so far. I think that the total cost of the realization of the wheat in the four Pools cannot be less, including railway freight, than Is. for the "A" wheat; Is. 6d. for "B" wheat; Is. 3d. for " C " wheat ; and Is. at least for " D " wheat. 11668 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Are you allowing anything for realizable assets, such as timber ? 11668 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - No. Another thing the farmers are entitled to know in connexion with Wheat Board finance is whether or not the whole of the wheat in the Pools has yet been paid for. In an actuarial survey of the statements given to the public by the Wheat Board, I find that the sum paid to the growers at the prices set out for the respective Pools - 4s. 9d., 3s. 3d., 3s. 3d., and 4s. 4d- is nearly £8,000,000 less than ought to have been paid, based on the quantity of wheat which the Wheat Board admits has been received into the Pools. I understand that this includes railway freights on the A " and " D " Pools ; but this, reckoned on the average of 4d. per bushel, will not amount to more than £4,000,000 sterling, so that, on the face of it, it looks as if £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or more is still owing to the growers. Coming hack for a moment to the position in New South Wales, I believe that less care has been exercised in connexion with the wheat storage there than in the other wheat-producing States of the Commonwealth. I am sorry to say that Mr. Grahame himself has made statements, before a Royal Commission, which lead one to the conclusion that there is going to be a heavy loss in connexion with the 1916-17 wheat. Farmers have been paid in New South Wales 3s. 3d. per bushel so far, and Mr. Grahame said that, up to the time of the Georgeson sale, 21,000,000 bushels of the 1916-17 wheat had been disposed of at an average of 4s. 3d. per bushel fio.b., leaving a balance of about 11,000,000 bushels, according to the books of the State Wheat Office, still to be sold. With such a definite statement as that, we are able to throw some light upon the real position of the 1916-17 Pool in New South Wales in comparison with the other States and other Pools. At 4s. 3d. per bushel, 21,000,000 bushels will realize £4,462,500. It is not reasonable to assume that in New South Wales we are likely to get more than 4s. net for the balance of 11,000,000 bushels, in view of the fact that it is the refuse of the whole of the Pool. 11668 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - The 1916-17 wheat was "pinched" before it was harvested. 11668 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Exactly. Now, 11,000,000 bushels at 4s. would amount to £2,200,000, or a total for the 33,000,000 bushels in New South Wales of £6,662,500. There has been advanced to the farmers £4,990,000, and as 32,050,000 bushels at 3s. 3d. amounts to £5,208,125, apparently there is a sum of £218,125 still owing to the farmers in connexion with that Pool. Expenses to 23rd June, 1919, amount to £1,718,000, so that there is against this realization % sum of £6,926,125 altogether, showing a loss on this Pool if all the wheat is saved and sold, of £263,625. But if the Pool is short to the extent of 6,000,000 bushels at 3s. 3d., the loss will be £1,238,625 in New South Wales on the 1916-17 Pool alone. 11668 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Have you allowed for deductions in deliveries at railway stations. 11668 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I have taken the figures as given to the public. If we examine the Minister's own statement, made so recently as last week, we shall find a good deal to confirm the figures which I have presented. Approximately, they are not very far from the truth. The Minister stated that, approximately, there were 30,000,000 bushels of wheat yet for sale, not allowing for loss by mice, weevils, fermentation, rain, theft, or by other causes. In view of the admissions that have been made in New South Wales in connexion with the Georgeson inquiry, and the re-adjustments made by the Wheat Board itself last week, it is fair to assume that from this quantity of 30,000,000 bushels, a large amount will have to be deducted. 11669 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I said that local supplies up to December would amount to another million of money. 11669 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - The Minister's figures show, after deducting bank overdraft, a credit to the Pool of only £1,479,000; but if there is only 10,000,000 bushels available out of the 30,000,000 bushels in the Pool in all the States, and if this is sold at 5s. at stations, a total of £2,500,000 will be arrived at as the amount to be further credited to the Pool, plus local sales of £500,000 a month, for five months, representing another £2,500,000 sterling, or a total of £6,479,000 altogether; whereas the net value of wheat scrip on 23rd June of this year was £8,276,000, against which there is apparently only £6,500,000 available. 11669 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - If any person is foolish enough to pay higher than market price for scrip, we give no guarantee that he will get his money. 11669 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Of course not, but the Minister should tell the Senate whether or not all the wheat is paid for, and, if not, how much remains, because that sum must be added to the debit of the Pool. The figures, so far as I can thresh them out on the Ministerial statement alone, show that a couple of million of pounds sterling is still owing to the farmers. 11669 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - There must be an omission somewhere from the honorable senator's figures. 11669 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I shall go back a moment in order to make my statement clear in this regard. Take, for instance, the " B " Pool, which is three years old. The Federal Wheat Board figures, dated 23rd June, state that there has been paid to the growers, in connexion with the Pool, at the rate of 3s. 3d. per bushel, the sum of £22,163,000. The same statement sets out that of this crop there were 13S,275,000 bushels in the Pool. This number, multiplied by 3s. 3d., will give £22,469,687. In other words, the Wheat Board say that they have paid to the growers, in connexion with " B " Pool, a sum of £300,000 less than the growers are entitled to, in view of the number of bushels of wheat in the Pool. This is an illustration of the point I wish to make with respect to the amount of money that is owing to the growers in connexion with their Pool operations. 11669 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think that in connexion with the " B " Pool, to which the honorable senator refers, 3s. per 'bushel was advanced at first, less railway freight. There had to be a deduction of the railway freight from that amount. 11669 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - The Wheat Board figures show that the sum of 3s. 3d. per bushel has been. 'paid to the farmers, and why complicate the position by criss-crossing with freight on one crop and not on another? The country is entitled to the most explicit, frank, and straightforward declaration of the wheat position that can possibly be given by the Minister. I hope that he will make such a declaration, after the remarks I have made to-day, because we all know that the care of the wheat is a responsibility of the State Governments, and not of the Federal Government, and the responsibility of the losses is not a responsibility of the Federal Government, but of State officials. I am not here criticising the Minister. 11669 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I am aware of that, and I am trying to help the honorable senator. 11669 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I want it to go forth to the country that the losses that have occurred are not the responsibility, or due to the fault, of the Federal Government, but that whatever responsibilities, fault, or incompetence there may be, it is the concern of the State Governments, and has nothing to do with the Federal Government, or with the conception of the Pool. Now, as to the farmers' point of view: The farmers rightly claim that the Government commandeered their wheat and that they are not liable for the losses that have occurred. I am sure that, whether we like it or not, there is a controversy looming as to whether the general body of the taxpayers should pay or whether the whole of the loss should be averaged over the four Pools. In this connexion, I should like to refer to an interjection made by the Vice-President of the Executive Council whilst Senator Gardiner was speaking this afternoon. The Minister said that each State will pay its own losses. I understand that an agreement was arrived at some months ago whereby the losses would be pooled over the whole of the operations of the wheat-growers. It is certainly understood in New South Wales that Victorian farmers will very likely have to make up, by the good management in Victoria, the bad management in New South Wales. 11670 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell -That is not so. There is no foundation for that rumour. 11670 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - The position is clarified by the utterance of the Minister in charge of the Bill, that where the State authorities have been incompetent, careless, or unlucky, the State concerned will have to stand the losses made and will have to be responsible to its own farmers. 11670 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - That is a clear and correct statement of the position. 11670 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN -From the figures I have given in connexion with the Wheat Pool I think we can judge, with a reasonable amount of accuracy, how much the farmers are going to net in connexion with the Government operations. If those figures are followed closely it will be seen that the wheat farmer is not going to average more than 4s. per bushel net, as the expenses already charged, with the losses yet to be adjusted, and the miscellaneous squaring up which will have to be made, will probably double the pre-war cost of putting the wheat from the country station f.o.b. the ship. Although, in my opinion, the average selling price is likely to be 5s. per bushel throughout the whole of the Government's activities, the farmer is not going to get more than 4s. of this amount. Now the question arises whether this will pay. My honorable friend, Senator Lynch, made a very valuable contribution to the subject of wheat-growing last year. He laid before us the increasing cost of wheat-growing, and placed before the Senate a good many statements to indicate the hard lot of the wheat farmer in many parts of Australia; We know that the average crop during the last ten years has been only about 12 bushels per acre, and if the farmer does not get more than 4s. per bushel he -cannot average a gross return of more than £2 8s. per acre as the result of his exertions. There has been some inquiry into the cost of wheat-growing in New South Wales. I am not quite sure whether it is official or not, but one of the conclusions come to in connexion with that inquiry was, that the cost of wheat-growing to-day is, approximately, £2 per acre. Therefore, if in war time the Australian farmer is only going to get an average return of £2 8s. per acre of wheat that he sows, and this is going to cost him £2 per acre to grow, there does not seem to be very much encouragement for wheat-farming, and it is no wonder that nearly, 4,000,000 acres have gone out of cultivation for wheat since the beginning of the war. I think that fact is very eloquent testimony to the hard luck of the farmers. 11670 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think that the advance in the price of wool has something to do with it. 11670 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - How share farmers have got on I do not know. I believe that land has gone out of cultivation for wheat, not only because of a shortage of labour and the enhanced prices obtained for meat and wool, but also because of the low prices that the wheat farmer has been getting under war conditions. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Extension of time granted, on motion by Senator Needham. 11670 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I have to thank the Senate for the courtesy extended to me. I shall be unable in the short time at my disposal to deal now with the bigger and more important questions of wool and all subsidiary industries, but I shall endeavour in Committee to deal with these questions and those affecting sugar, wool, and dairying in the most effective way possible under the new standing order. I have mentioned the great secrecy which has been observed in connexion with our wheat operations. It is public property that censorship was exercised in connexion with statements attempted to be made as to the wheat position. I would urge upon the Minister that the policy of keeping in the dark the growers, the men who own the wheat, whose property, and very often whose all, it is, has been the one fault and folly of the Wheat Pool, and has tended more than anything else to make the wheat scheme unpopular. 11671 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I do not think it is quite fair to say that the growers have been kept in the dark. I gave my assurance to the Senate that I had published all the information I possibly could give.. I ask Senator Pratten to accept that, because his statement that the growers have been kept in the dark will not read very well in print. I do not think that he quite means what that statement would convey. 11671 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - No personal reflection upon the Minister is intended. I think he will realize that the wheat position is an extremely complicated one to the ordinary man, and that it is almost impossible for him to figure out what the owners will eventually get for their wheat unless some help in the matter is given by those of us who have tried to understand the position, and some further assistance is given by the Minister himself. I trust that I have his assurance that he will endeavour to clear up the position and face it. I repeat that the losses that have been incurred in wheat stacking and by State administrative control are no responsibilities of his. I am sorry that he did not face the position some two years ago. I think that if he had done so a good deal of friction might have been avoided and much dissatisfaction prevented. I trust that as a result of the observations that have been made to-day the Minister will be as frank as he can with the country in this matter. 11671 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I have always been so. 11671 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Looking abroad, what do the farmers say? They read that the Government of the United States of America guaranteed their wheat farmers last year 9s. 2d. per bushel for all the wheat they grew, that that crop was marketed at little or no loss to the country, and that the same guarantee is being given by the Government of the United States of America this year of a further 9s. 2d. per bushel for all the wheat that the farmers of that country can grow. They read, also, that the British Government have guaranteed their farmers 9s. per bushel, and that the Canadian Government have guaranteed farmers in Canada 8s. 4d. per bushel for their crop. I agree with Senator Gardiner tha't when the Australian farmer reads of these conditions prevailing in other Dominions and other countries he is rightly critical of the amount he nets for his crop. The question of freights has been mentioned, and the amount which the Australian farmer is called upon to pay in freight. I have given some little attention to this phase of the matter, but I am driven' to conclusions other than those arrived at by Senator Gardiner. One of the conclusions to which I am driven is that the sum of £1,000,000 per day approximately that was collected by the British Government in excess profit taxation has been collected from a hundred different sources all over the world, and that the Australian farmer has practically paid some of it. Wheat freights vary, and I believe the rate to-day is £5 per ton to Falmouth. According to a statement made by the Prime Minister wheat freights have been as high as £11 per ton. 11671 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - How would that work out per bushel? 11671 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Every £1 per ton in freight means about 6£d. per bushel. If a war-time freight from Australia to Europe, including shipowners profit, is set down at, say, £3 per ton it is evident that the British Government did, or should have collected from 60 to SO per cent, of the abnormal profit, which was the difference between £3 and the freight actually charged. If the average of excess profit was anything from £2 to £6 per ton - the British Government would be entitled to at least 30s. to £4 per ton under their excess war-time profits tax, which would represent from a minimum of 9fd. to a maximum of nearly 2s. 6d. on every bushel of Australian wheat shipped abroad during war time. 11672 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Would that account for the discrepancy between the price paid for Australian wheat and that fixed for British and Canadian wheat? 11672 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - To some extent it would. The abnormal profit over and above £3 per ton, basing freight on £5 to £11 per ton, was anything from £2 to £8 per ton. If the British Government, under their excess war-time profits tax, took 60 to SO per cent, of the increase it is clearly seen that they have received out of the freights paid to convey Australian wheat to Europe, sums amounting to from 30s. to £6 per ton. 11672 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - That was of no benefit to the Australian farmer. 11672 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - No, the British Government received an excess profit of anything from 6d. to 3s. per bushel on our wheat. The British consumer did not derive very much benefit, as a freight of £5 equals 2s. 8Jd. per bushel, and a freight of £11 equals nearly 6s. per bushel. 11672 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Was it not more a question of expediency in regard to the transportation of the wheat? 11672 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I am not touching that point just now. The Australian farmer admittedly sold at a low price compared with the world's parity. As I have mentioned, the British consumer did not receive very much benefit, and the freights mentioned had to be added to the price obtained by the Australian Wheat Board, f.o.b. Australia, or its wheat sold and shipped at that freight. Under any circumstances, even at the highest rate of freight, Australian wheat was the cheapest delivered to Great Britain at c.i.f. prices, as the New World growers obtained 9s., 10s., Ils., and 12s. per bushel for their product. The British consumer did not derive much benefit directly, but a good deal of the profits went indirectly into the British coffers as war taxation. Reference has been made to the Australian Government's line of steam-ships and its effect on freights. I have already mentioned that the responsibility in connexion with the loss on the Pools is not the responsibility of the Federal Government, but is clearly the responsibility of the various States. The farmer feels that he has been harshly dealt with, and according to a statement made by the Acting Prime Minister, their losses will not be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue nor out of the taxpayers' pockets as a whole. The farmers are being asked a high price for next season's cornsacks - at least 5d. per bushel. Mr. Asquith admits that the Australian farmers have contributed to the British war-time profits, and Mr. Prothero, the Minister of the Board of Agriculture, has also alluded to the patriotism of the Australian farmers. We should all face the position squarely, and do something for them. 11672 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What do you suggest? J 11672 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I suggest, in view of the greatly increased cost of the production, the probable increase in the world's shipping during the next two or three years, and the statements made in connexion with the starving millions of Europe, that the Government should see that the Australian farmers, who have had so much bad luck in having sold war wheat at peace prices, should have a guarantee of at least 5s. per bushel at country stations for the next three years. We have come to the point when we have to realize that wheat growing is not being undertaken as extensively as previously. Instead of the Government hesitating to guarantee 4s. for the coming season - without running any risk - they should face the position, and try to make up these losses and resuscitate such an important industry. This can be done at little risk, and it will stabilize the position. It will enable the farmer to know what he is to receive as a minimum for the next three years. The Government would incur little risk, and such action would give the primary producers of Australia some security. 11673 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Do you estimate that the receipts of the farmer have been 4s. per bushel as a result of past transactions ? 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - For the four Pools? 11673 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Yes. Does that mean 4s. net ? 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Yes, net at country stations. 11673 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - He would not pay transport fees at all ? 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - No. I pointed out that 4s. net to the farmer was at the country stations, and that it was likely that the average for the whole of the four Pools would be 5s. But with the abnormal expenses deducted the net average to the farmer would not be more than 4s. during the war period. 11673 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - You did not include assets, such as iron and timber ? 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - No. I have taken the Board's figures, and analyzed them as they stand. On the whole, I think we can support this measure, although I give it my support with some reluctance. I believe the Government are committed, and we are, therefore, in honour bound to carry out those commitments. I do not at all agree with this " Made-in-Germany " idea of State organization and control of everything. In normal times private enterprise should have full control of all commercial undertakings. I am opposed to centripetal force as we have it today, with a Minister standing on a rostrum, controlling our producers and manufacturers. I do not believe in one man controlling the affairs of others simply by pushing a button and telling them what to do, as well as exercising the power to veto. Now the war is over, I do not favour the Government going too far with these nostrums. We have all been through a difficult time, and I believe the experience of the world has been that individual enterprise, if allowed to follow reasonab'e lines, will be more successful in developing our country, and will act generally in the best interests of the producers. 11673 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - Do you mean private enterprise? 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - I am warning the Government against going too far in controlling everything. The Anglo-Saxon temperament will not stand it, as we are a peculiarly constituted people. I hope the Government will, as they have commenced to do by the repeal of the War Precautions Regulations, allow trade and commerce to return into fair and reasonable channels, and that they will not attempt, in this National Parliament, to obtain control over everything from Port Darwin to Cape Leeuwin, and from Cape York to Cape Otway. 11673 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Yet the honorable senator has just recommended a guarantee by the Commonwealth Government of 5s. per bushel for the farmers' wheat. 11673 K1J 0 0 PRATTEN, Herbert Senator PRATTEN - Yes, but only as a quid pro quo. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order ! The honorable senator's time has expired. 11673 JYT Queensland 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS . - Unlike the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat, I favour State control, as I believe it is a step in the right direction. Senator Pratten said that the Anglo-Saxon people would not take kindly to such control, but during the most trying period of our national history it was found necessary, and availed of even in Great Britain in connexion with almost everything. The Government seek to continue a state of affairs which held sway during the war period, and the question has been raised whether they have the constitutional power to continue such control. The Acting Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) in speaking in another place seemed to be quite satisfied that the Government have the power, and if they have it in regard to the five commodities dealt with in the Bill, they must have similar power in regard to other commodities, especially the necessaries of life. The Government therefore will be guilty of inconsistency - having exercised' control for varying periods over the five commodities mentioned - if they do not continue to regulate prices and control supplies. If the Government have not the power, I do not think that, as suggested by Senator Gardiner, the matter will be brought before the Courts. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, so far as the lay- man can judge, there is at least some doubt in the matter. But I am not afraid that the action of the Government in this direction will be challenged, because 1 believe there is an implied understanding of some kind. If a Labour Government were in office, and were endeavouring to secure the powers provided in this Bill, we know that the whole matter will be fought out in the highest Court of the land. 11674 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - This control benefits many of the industries affected. 11674 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - It does; that is just the point. Senator Russell, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that the people in whose charge the Government had placed many of these important matters, while exercising that control, were looking after their own interests. That remark is true in more til an one sense. 11674 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - What I said was that the wool-growers were practically looking after and managing their own business. 11674 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - If the Government proposes to continue legislation of the kind we are discussing, it will be well not to embody so many separate and important subjects within the one measure. It has been amply demonstrated to-day that it is impossible for any individual to deliver, within the time limit, a speech fully dealing with the whole matter contained within this Bill. It has been truly stated that the. measure consists of five Bills in one. Having listened to two- excellent speeches on the subject of wheat, I propose to refer to that part of the Bill having relation to the sugar industry. The growing of sugar has been keenly, harshly, and unwarrantably criticised by people in the southern States. We have heard for years a cry for cheap sugar. Sugar in Australia during the past four years has been purchasable at a lower price than in any other country in the world. It was at one time claimed on behalf of Queensland, and with every justification, that the measure of protection which bad been afforded the sugar industry had been amply justified by the extent of direct settlement brought about in the north of that State; that the trade created, and the revenue maintained by the industry, had fully repaid the people of Australia for the degree of protection' granted. We can say to-day, however, that the degree of protection hitherto accorded to the Queensland sugar industry has been fully repaid to Australia's citizens during the war. Had we been dependent upon supplies from outside sources, we would have had to pay more than double the ruling rates for our sugar. People concerned in the dried fruit and jam-making industries have been among the most conspicuous in raising the cry for cheaper sugar; but they have failed to mention that their own industries are very highly protected; more highly, indeed, than the sugar industry. 11674 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - They want protection as sellers, but not as buyers. 11674 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Quite so ! The jam-makers have contended that the commodity which they manufacture comprises equal parts of fruit and sugar. It is generally admitted, however, that in a prolific fruit season considerably more than half of the jam manufactured consists of fruit. During the first year of the war, the cost of Australian sugar was kept down by price-fixing operations in the southern States. The price was maintained at a lower level than had existed in the five years prior to the outbreak of war. That was a ridiculous condition of affairs, but it was continued for twelve or fifteen months, until the Premier of Queensland (Mr. Ryan), after consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), introduced what is known as the famous Sugar Acquisition Act. He commandeered the Queensland sugar crop, and, under agreement with the Commonwealth Government, sold it at £18 per ton as raw sugar. There was, of course, a great outcry; but the former price of £14 a ton for the raw commodity was unwarrantably low. The people of Queensland had had every justification for seeking an advance in the quotation for raw sugar, quite apart from the circumstances arising from the outbreak of war. When the quotation was raised to £18 a ton, the sugar industry employees were working under what is known as the McNaughton award; and the raw sugar price was satisfactory. Those conditions were maintained throughout the 1916 crop operations, and into those dealing with the 1917 crop when the famous Dickson award was made. That fixed an advanced rate of wages, and the increase was not unwarranted. Eight years ago, the wages paid in the sugar industry were as low as 25s. a week. 11675 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - " And found." 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Yes. Senator Crawford was at that time president of the Sugar Producers Association. The workers had become organized, and they wrote to the secretary of the association requesting a conference for the purpose of ascertaining whether the industry could not afford to pay 5s. a day for an eight-hour day. The growers, however, refused to grant a conference. They replied that they knew what the rate of wages amounted to and what they could afford to pay. They would not grant an interview with the men. 11675 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - That is not a correct statement. 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The association refused to, meet the men in. conference, with the result that the latter were forced to go on strike. That was in 1911. 11675 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - You do not mention that a large amount of the work was done under contract, and that the men made much more than 25s.a week " and found." 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The employers, at any rate, would not discuss whether the rate should or should not be 5s. a day. The next step was taken by Mr. Tudor, as Minister for Trade and Customs, when he issued regulations providing for the payment of1s. per hour. Of course, there was another howl. The McNaughton award constituted an advance upon that rate, while the Dickson award provided a still further increase. At a selling price of £18 a ton for raw sugar it was found impossible to pay the rates set out in the Dickson award. The plea for an advance in the selling price could not be combated. About that time a conference of sugar-growers was called by the Queensland Government to ascertain what the growers considered a fair price for raw sugar at which they could pay the rates under the Dickson award. The estimate varied from £22 10s. to about £25 a ton. Senator Crawford at that time was in Melbourne with the secretary of the Australian Sugar Producers Association (Mr. Pritchard). Those gentlemen interviewed the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes). I understand that they put a proposal before him to the effect that the sugar-growers would agree to the purchase of their crop at £22 7s. per ton for raw sugar, with a quid pro quo in the form of an assurance by Mr. Hughes that the crop for that year, namely, 1917, would be harvested by industrial operations conducted under the protection of the War Precautions Act. Mr. Hughes undertook that if any trouble occurred in Queensland the Prime Ministerwould introduce a regulation under the War Precautions Act to insure that the crop was taken off. Mr. Hughes did not indicate from what source he proposed to secure the labour. He did not mention whether it would comprise more of his Maltese importations, whether it would consist of Japanese labourers, or whether advantage would be taken of the compulsory services of men employed in home service duties. The source of that labour was known, apparently, to Mr. Hughes alone, but he gave the assurance that the Queensland crop would be taken off. 11675 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - In other words, he was protecting the people's food supplies. 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Fortunately for the people's food supplies, and for the people themselves, it did not become necessary for Mr. Hughes to fulfil his undertaking. The saner members of the Federal Cabinet must have restrained Mr. Hughes' impetuosity. 11675 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - I am not aware of Mr. Hughes having given any such assurance. 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I will convince the honorable senator of that later; but I know that that was the situation. 11675 KUL 0 0 MILLEN, Edward Senator Millen - In the meantime you make the assertion. 11675 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - To be proved later. 11675 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Yes. When those representations on behalf of the Sugar Producers Association were being made, Mr.Hughes announced in the House of Representatives that the Commonwealth Government was about to- purchase the crop that year at £22 7s. per ton. The price was generally regarded as being about the minimum, and the announcement was generally well received. However, certain other influences evidently got to work, because that offer never formally reached the Queensland Government. Once the intimation had been made in the House of Representatives, manufacturing interests presumably got busy, and told Mr. Hughes his offer for the raw commodity was too high. Eventually the price was whittled down to £21, and a sort of promise was made that if anything remained over at the close of operations the margin would be divided between the sugar -growers and the manufacturers. I do not think the growers have heard anything about the division since then. That purchase price for raw sugar, as compared with the quotation for refined sugar, has had the undoubted effect of increasing the manufacturers' profits; and under this Bill Parliament is now asked to extend the term of the manufacturers' profit-making. When Mr. Hughes' offer was made to the Queensland Government it had been reduced to £21 a ton. Even then the proposition was hedged about with most outrageous stipulations. Mr. Hughes asked that the Queensland Government should undertake and guarantee that during the currency of the agreement, and with respect to succeeding crops - if the agreement were to cover them - there would be no industrial disputes. 11676 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Was that an outrageous condition ? 11676 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - It was a preposterous proposal to ask any Government for such a guarantee. 11676 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - In a land of compulsory arbitration ? 11676 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Presently I shall point Senator de Largie to something even more preposterous. Mr. Hughes asked the Premier of Queensland to give an undertaking either that the waterside workers would not go on strike during the currency of the agreement or that no difficulty would be experienced with them. Obviously the Queensland Premier has no jurisdiction over the waterside workers. That is a Federal matter. It was impossible for him to give any such undertaking. In my opinion, these preposterous suggestions were advanced by Mr. Hughes in accordance with his usual method of asking for so much, and allowing a bit of room to come and go upon in a spirit of compromise. When the Queensland Government was compelled to refuse his preposterous request, Mr. Hughes said: "Very well, we will meet you half way and give you this." The Premier of Queensland had then to sign the agreement, because the interests of the Queensland crop imperatively demanded it. The season was wearing on, and a press bombardment was being directed against him on account of his delay in signing the agreement, and thus fixing the price of raw sugar. Eventually, when the agreement was signed, Mr. Hughes retained what, in my opinion, he meant to retain in the first instance and no more. Here, I may be permitted to inform the Senate that when the Queensland Labour party went to the country in 1915 it did so with a proposal that Cane Prices Boards should be established for the purpose of regulat ing the price of sugar cane. That party was returned triumphantly, and during the first session of the next Parliament, it passed a measure called "An Act for the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices." My Queensland colleagues will admit that the operation of that Statute has proved most beneficial to the sugar-growers in that State. One of the most baneful effects of the bounty system in connexion with the sugar industry was that it aimed at the production of a high tonnage irrespective of the sugar contents of the cane. 11676 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - In some localities only. 11676 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I suppose that if we had to sell our cane by weight any one of us would naturally grow the particular species of cane that would produce the greatest tonnage. That was an evil of the bounty system. The Cane Prices Boards have encouraged the cultivation of a cane of higher density, and with a better sugar content, with the result that the cane farmer has not now to produce so high a tonnage in order to obtain the same amount of money. Thus the Act has been of mutual advantage to the grower and the miller. 11677 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - And to the consumer ? 11677 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The consumer hardly comes in there. In addition, it is safe to say that the operation of these Boards has resulted in a. general increase to the sugar-grower of about 9s. per ton of cane. When this particular legislation was enacted at the instance of the Labour Government of Queensland, it was naturally expected that the sugar interests would welcome it. As a matter of fact, the growers did, but the millers did not. The proprietary mills were up against it immediately, and they sought to evade its provisions in every possible way. The Court records of Queensland are liberally bespattered with the prosecutions of mills, because they failed to carry out the awards, and thus sought .to defeat the will of Parliament. One of these Court cases eventually reached the Privy Council on appeal. In this particular prosecution, which originated in the Bundaberg district, the District Court Judge gave his judgment in favour of the action of the Government. The Supreme Court of Queensland upset that judgment, and its decision was in turn reversed by the full bench' of the Supreme Court of that State. The milling authorities then appealed to the High Court, which not only turned down the Act, but in doing so gave a unanimous judgment - an exceedingly rar© occurrence. Mr. Ryan then took the case to the Privy Council, which upset the decision of the High Court. 11677 JZD 0 0 FOLL, Hattil Senator Foll - And yet the Queensland Labour Government are endeavouring to make the High Court the final Court of appeal. 11677 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - And so it should be. I trust that in the not distant future we shall get brighter intellects on the benches of all the Courts of Australia and a few younger men. I have mentioned this matter because the proprietary mills in Queensland have endeavoured by other methods to nullify the effects of this beneficent legislation. I recollect the occasion when the Colonial Sugar Refining Company's mill refused admission to the check chemists whose services were necessary to check the density of the cane which was being operated upon. When the Government made it compulsory for the company to admit these chemists, one would naturally have thought that the difficulty was at an end. But when the price was increased to £21 per ton - that was the price which the milling interests demanded of Mr. Hughes - he, at their dictation, forced it upon the Queensland Government. When the regulation of the Sugar Cane Prices Act was amended to overcome this opposition to the Cane Prices Board, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company discovered a loop-hole by which it could evade its legal responsibilities. Honorable senators will, I think, be surprised when I show them the extent to which this monopoly is prepared to go in order to achieve its ends and to obtain an advantage for itself in spite of the law. Section 6 of the Regulation of Sugar Cane Prices Act of Queensland. 1915-17 .provides - A local Board may, with respect to the lands and the mill for which they have been constituted, make an award determining the price or prices to be paid md accepted by the owner or the owners of the mill and cane-growers respectively for sugar-cane sold and taken delivery of at the mill concerned, and determining all matters relating to the supply of sugar cane and payment therefor. One would think that the position there was most explicitly stated. It is plainly set out that sugar cane sold to the mills, and paid for, shall be subject to the operation of that Act. . But the Colonial Sugar Refining Company saw a means of evading the Statute. Section 6 provides only for the sale to the mills of sugar cane by a grower. Nobody would expect that any person but a grower would sell sugar cane to the mills. But the Colonial Sugar Refining Company either persuaded or coerced growers who supplied their mills not to sell the sugar cane direct to those mills, but to sell it to one of their staff in Sydney. Thus, John Smith purchased the cane, and sent it to their mills, with the result that the (provisions of the Act were defeated. That illustrates the depth to which high commercialism in Australia is prepared to descend. At the present time there are many districts in Queensland in which numbers of cane farmers are unable to take advantage of an Act which has been passed for their special benefit, and which is operating to such good purpose in other districts of that State. That the growers are behind the retention of the regulation of the Sugar Cane Prices Act was shown by the result of the election in 1918, when the Ryan Government were returned to power with a greater majority than ever. Under the agreement embodied in the Bill which is now before us, we are asked to continue till the 30th September a stipulation which prohibits the operation of the regulation of the Sugar Cane Prices Act in certain districts in Queensland. I shall endeavour to show how that result is brought about. Part 4 of the Bill is very brief. In fact, the whole proposal relating to the sugar industry, which, I suppose, is, roughly worth ' no less than £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 annually to Australia, consists of only one clause, containing three sub-clauses and covering about eleven lines. Clause 7 says - Any person who, without the consent in' writing of the Treasurer, sells, or offers for sale, at any time before the prescribed date, any sugar of the grade known as 1A, at a greater price per- pound than the prescribed price, shall be guilty of an offence. The Governor-General may make regulations fixing the prescribed price at which sugar miiy be sold at any time before the prescribed date. Until any regulation is made in pursuance of this section, the prescribed price of sugar of the grade known as 1A shall be threepence halfpenny per pound, plus such sum as represents the cost incurred by the vendor in respect of the delivery of the sugar to him. That does not appear to contain anything of a very drastic nature. But if we turn to the preamble of the measure, it will be observed that, owing to the following up of the conditions which operated during the war period, it has been found necessary, inter alia; to ratify an agreement with the State of Queensland for the acquisition by the Commonwealth of the raw sugar produced in that State during the seasons 1918 and 1919.. The preamble also covers an agreement with certain refining companies for the refining of the raw sugar so acquired. "What is that agreement? Its* ramifications are plainly set out, and if honorable senators will peruse the preamble they will see the pertinency of my remarks concerning the regulation of the Sugar Cane Prices Act. Clause 3 of the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government relating to the purchase of sugar for the seasons 1918 and 1919 reads - The Commonwealth and the State Government mutually agree: - (a) that neither Government will until this agreement has been fully performed and the refined sugar resulting from the refining of raw sugar delivered under this agreement has been fully disposed of by the Commonwealth - XXX. (i) take or sanction any Executive or administrative action; or introduce, support, assist, or encourage any proposed legislation which would have or be likely to have the effect of altering (otherwise than as set forth in this agreement) - the conditions existing on the 14th day of May, 1918;or the legal rights and obligations of sugar cane growers and sugar mill owners on that date. The agreement expressly, forbids any legislative or Executive interference by the Queensland. Government with the conditions that existed in May, 1918. I know it has been stated repeatedly in the press, and, no doubt, I shall be told here, that that provision was inserted so as to avoid' industrial legislation varying the nature of the award during the currency of the agreement. That was the reason given to the newspapers, but the real reason was to prevent the Queensland Government from amending the Sugar. Cane Prices Board -Act, in order to compel the Colonial Sugar Refining Company's mills' to buy their cane sugar from the growers instead of through an official in the Sydney office, who thus comes in as an intermediary. The Queensland Government desired to amend their legislation in - the direction indicated, and Colonial Sugar Refining Company growers wanted an amendment, but, unfortunately, have been prevented by this agreement, which will be ratified in the Bill now under consideration, so that the Queensland Government will not be permitted to continue its sugar policy. This is wholly wrong, and honorable senators should know the real position when they are asked to agree to the proposal. We hear a great deal about the necessity for increased production, now that the war is over, but it seems strange that encouragement is not to be given to primary producers in that part of Queensland which most urgently requires development. The restrictions which have been operating for the past couple of years will continue to operate until the Commonwealth inform the Colonial Sugar Refining Company that they must treat the sugar-growers in their districts in a manner similar to the treatment accorded to growers served by other mills throughout the State. 11679 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - Colonial Sugar Refining Company growers are, and always have been, treated better than those in any other part of Queensland. 11679 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - If that is so, where is the necessity for this provision in the agreement? 11679 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - They asked for it. 11679 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - If Colonial Sugar Refining Company growers are prepared to enter into an agreement with the company, it suggests, as Mr. Justice Higgins remarked in Court the other day in regard to another case, that some other influences have been at work. It may be regarded as pretty good evidence of the operation of coercive influences, and so I accept, with some reservation; any speeches made, or petitions signed, by growers in districts controlled by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. 11679 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - Does that remark apply as well to the attitude of the seamen towards the Arbitration Court? 11679 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Well, there may be an attempt to-day to coerce the seamen into the Arbitration Court. If the honorable senator desires to initiate, at some other time, a discussion on the present industrial dispute, I shall have no hesitation in expressing my views upon that subject- There is another provision in the agreement which should call for opposition from all senators who have the welfare of Australia at heart. In the first clause the following appears : - That in view of the large financial responsibility incurred by the Commonwealth Government under this agreement, and in order to avoid, as far as practicable, the production of raw sugar in excess of the normal requirements of Australia, the Queensland Government will not, during the said seasons of 1918-10- Erect or assist in or encourage the erection of any new mill for the treatment of sugar cane into sugar; or remove or assist in or encourage the removal of any sugar mill from its present site; or alter, enlarge or extend, or assist in or encourage in the alteration, enlargement, or extension of any sugar mill so as to increase its present crushing capacity. Does Senator Crawford stand for that? 11679 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - The Government waived that months ago. 11679 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Then why is it being embodied in the present agreement ? It is well known and generally admitted that the trend of sugar cultivation in Queensland is northward, into the tropical regions of the State. With exception of Nambour, Bundaberg, and Childers districts, the disposition is to extend cultivation into the more northern parts of the State, where the density is higher and the ground new, and where the crops are so prolific as to treble the capacity of the mills. Senator Crawford will agree with me that mills like the Invicta, if erected in such places as the Stone River, Tully River, Daintree River, and as far north as Bloomfield River, could be worked to two or three times their present capacity. 11679 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - The Invicta mill is being removed now, or it will be removed as soon as the strike is over. 11679 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - The tendency in more settled districts is to go in for larger and more modern mills, but some mills now operating in the lower districts of the State might with advantage be removed to those northern parts of Queensland, where they would suit requirements admirably until production had so increased as to justify the erection of mills of greater capacity. Under this agreement, the Queensland Government will not be allowed to assist any such movement for the extension of the industry. 11679 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - The Invicta mill is being removed. 11680 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - But the Queensland Government are taking no hand in it.Senator Crawford will remember that the sugar-growers on the Burdekin came to the assistance of the Haughton River producers who wanted the Invicta mill. The Government of Queensland took no hand in the business financially. 11680 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - They did not want to. 11680 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - They were not allowed to. 11680 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Do the members of the Queensland Government want to assist? 11680 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I know the Treasurer is sympathetic towards the extension of the sugar industries in the northern part of Queensland, but, as I have said, the Queensland Government are prevented from making an advance to growers. In the face of this agreement, how can honorable senators talk of the necessity for increasing production? If they continue to do so, I shall be forced to the conclusion that they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks Senator Crawford would not go into any district in Queensland other than those served by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and advocate the removal of the Cane Prices Board award. 11680 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - My district has never had it. 11680 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - If the award is such a good thing for other districts, it should be equally good for those districts and growers served by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company's mills; but under the agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments they will not be allowed to invoke the aid of the Act. They are obliged to sell their cane to an official in Sydney, instead of to the mills, and thus, by means of a third person, the award of the Cane Prices Board is evaded. Senator Crawford, who took a prominent part in a quiet way in endeavouring to have the sugar industry carried on under regulations of the War Precautions Act, knows all this. He is in touch with everything that is going on. When the selling price of raw sugar was £14 per ton, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company always had a margin of £6 per ton between the prices for raw and A1 refined, but when the price of raw sugar was raised to £18 per ton in 1915, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company advanced the price of refined sugar to £25 10s., increasing the margin by 30s. per ton. Subsequently, when the price for raw sugar was raised to £21, refined sugar became £29 5s., the margin being £8 5s. It is fair to ask what becomes of that £8 5s., which represents a margin twice as great as the margin in Europe under the Cartel system, and three times the margin allowed in America. Under the agreement which the Minister was good enough to show me, provision is made for a number of charges. 11680 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think I can say that that has nothing to do with the fixing of the final price. It is fixed by the Government, and is based on the quantity we have to import to make up the shortage locally. We strike an average price. 11680 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - That was done in 1915. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us later on, in addition to the charges allowed under the agreement, how the difference of £8 5s. to which I have referred is made up. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. It is provided in clause 12 of the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company that - The gross proceeds of all sales by the company of all products of the raw sugar will be collected by the company, and will be chargeable with the following costs, expenses, and charges, viz. : - the f.o.b. price of the raw sugar; the shipping charge, provided for in clause 4 hereof; which, as I have mentioned, is 32s.11d. per ton - the refining charge provided for in clause 5 hereof ; which is 27s. 6d. per ton - freight insurance, wharfage, and cartage charges on and in respect of refined products shipped to Western Australia, and between the refineries ; the actual cost of tinning and packing syrup and treacle; the actual cost of packages in which refined sugar is contained; the selling charge provided for in clause 7 hereof. The selling charge is 7s. per ton - the interest charge (ifany), provided for in clause 8 hereof; the managing charge 'provided for in clause 9 hereof. This managing charge provided for under clause 9 amounts to £1 per ton, and apparently it is imposed, on top of all the other charges which have been referred to, including the shipping charge of 32s. l1d. per ton, and the refining charge of 27s. 6d. per ton. 11681 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - The managing charge is their profit. 11681 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - No doubt Senator Crawford will be able to explain why such a charge is necessary. He is in a position to enlighten the Senate on the subject. I point out that the cost of packing syrup is paid for ; the cost of the packages is paid for ; the cost of refining and shipping are paid for; and there is a selling charge of 7s. per ton; and I want to know why, on the top of all this, there should be a managing charge of £1 per ton. It does seem strange to me that when the several charges for the work performed by the company are set out in the agreement, there should also be provision made for a managing charge. There is a belief generally held that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company is getting far too much out of the business under the control of the Government. I believe that the consumers of Australia are not hardly dealt with when they can purchase Al refined sugar at 3½d. per lb. In normal times, quite apart from war time, the consumer would be doing fairly well in obtaining Al refined sugar at that price. But there is a section of the community that, in my opinion, is somewhat harshly dealt with, though not as harshly as were the cane-growers prior to the increased prices fixed for cane. Under the old conditions the grower had to take whatever the miller or refiner was willing to give him. Since he has had the assistance of the Cane Prices Boards his position has been improved. I do not think that the retailer of sugar is now getting quite as fair a deal as he is entitled to. I think that a little more might be taken from the Colonial Sugar Refining Company and given to the retailer.I do not swallow all the circulars that we have received from the Victorian Grocers Association and similar bodies, but, having looked into the matter, I think that the retailer is not now allowed a sufficient margin to enable him to make a fair profit from his operations in the sale of sugar. I believe that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, as the refining monopoly, is still getting too much out of the business. 11681 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - What would the honorable senator consider a fair profit for the refiner? 11681 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - I look at the balance-sheets of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and find that every year their profits run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is not a question of what I consider a fair profit, but of the profit which the company makes and distributes every six months. That is where the shoe pinches. 11681 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator Needham - It is what the company determines. 11681 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Yes. I very much regret that when representations were being made to Mr. Hughes, -the recommendations of the combined growers of Queensland made to the Premier of that State and Mr. Lennon were not brought before him. It was said that they made a demand for £25 per ton, but I think that, on good grounds, what they asked for was £23 or £22 10s. per ton. The representations, which, presumably, were made to Mr. Hughes through some occult source, and induced him to say that he would not allow £22 7s., but only £21, per ton, were not in the best interests of the sugar-growers of Queensland. 11681 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Whatever the increase to the consumer, we are making no profit out of the business. 11681 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - A profit was made out of the business for one or two years. 11681 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - Only in the first year. 11682 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - A profit of £500,000. 11682 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I think that we shall lose this year, because we have to import more. 11682 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - That brings me back to my contention that there is not enough in the business for the retailer. 11682 K3E 0 0 RUSSELL, Edward Senator Russell - I want it to be clearly understood that the loss is on importations, and not on the local product. 11682 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - That is worth knowing. In normal times we hope that, with the development of the industry, the bogy of over-production referred to in the agreement will not be regarded seriously. There have, I think, been only three years in the history of the industry in Australia in which the production, overtook the consumption. In the circumstances, when we see a statement in an agreement between two Governments suggesting a fear of over-production, it makes us a little suspicious, and inclined to think that some persons were looking for an excuse on which to base their opposition to development at the hands of the Queensland Government. I want some information from Senator Russell as to how the margin between the selling price of raw sugar - £21 per ton - and the selling price of refined sugar - £29 5s. per ton - is accounted for, and how it is distributed; and, also, I should like to know why the provision to which I have referred cannot be omitted from the agreement? As Senator Crawford has intimated, the provision preventing the development of sugar factories has been waived by the Government, and I can, therefore, with every justification, ask the Minister to excise it from the agreement, so that when we pass this Bill embodying the agreement we shall not be perpetuating that hindrance to the development of this very important industry in Australia. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. 11682 JXJ Western Australia 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM . - The debate on the Commercial Activities Bill presents two important features; first, the limitation of its scope, and, secondly, the limitation of speeches recently adopted by the Senate. It has already been discovered by those who have dealt with this subject that they were not able, within the limited time at their disposal, to fully express their opinions. The Bill gives certain powers, or assumes certain powers, to legislate in the direction of controlling dairy produce, sugar, wool, flax, and whea't. If this Parliament now has power to legislate in the direction indicated in the Bill, it has had that power all along. I understand the Government are fortified in their action in introducing this measure by the advice of certain legal gentlemen, and I believe the opinions expressed by those gentlemen are unanimous. I am not a lawyer, but I dare say that when this measure becomes law it is quite within the realms of possibility that a test case will be brought in the High Court, and that its provisions will be found, to be ultra vires. One of the legal advisers of the Government in this connexion may become a Justice of the High Court of Australia, and in that capacity may be called upon to interpret the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The constitutional aspect of this matter appeals to me. 11682 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - It is a very important aspect. 11682 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - As Senator Bakhap has interjected, it is an important aspect, and it is the crux of the whole Bill. If we can legislate for a future period in connexion with any of the products mentioned in the Bill, we must have possessed the power to do so hitherto. 11682 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - We are completing contracts - that is the difference. 11682 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I admit that. These contracts were entered into under the War Precautions Act, which will expire within a certain time by a mandate of this Parliament, but this Bill is to continue some of its provisions after the Act has expired. The War Precautions Act in itself is all-powerful. It is an absorbing and comprehensive measure, but when that awful Act dies, the extraordinary powers vested in the Government, and the contracts referred to by Senator Reid, must necessarily die with it. The War Precautions Act has been responsible for many glaring acts of maladministration, and under its protection our liberties have been suppressed. I fail to see how we can perpetuate its provisions by a- Bill such as this, which provides that the price of dairy produce, wool, sugar, flax, and wheat may be fixed until 1920. What is to prevent us fixing the price of these particular commodities for fifty years hence? I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill if be will point out to the Senate what section of the Constitution permits this Parliament to fix the price of, say, butter or sugar, and forbids Parliament fixing the price of any other commodity. Pricefixing has 'rt very important bearing on this particular Bill, and one would naturally like to know why we cannot go farther and fix the price of every commodity in general use throughout Australia. If we have the constitutional power to fix the price of butter and sugar, surely we have the power to fix the price of other articles. While the price of certain articles is to bo regulated, and the profiteer is to be held in check, he is to be allowed to run rampant in other directions. Why not fix the price of meat? 11683 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Those who argue in favour of the measure say that no meat contracts are still in operation. 11683 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - That may be so, but, independent of any contracts entered into, we are told that we have the power to fix the prices of other articles. 11683 K18 LP 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Not unless they are associated with some war arrangement. I deny that we have the right to fix the price of sugar, for instance, unless that commodity is connected with a war arrangement. 11683 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - If we are to take advantage of this measure, Parliament has the power, under the Constitution, to fix the price of anything. I believe contracts have been entered into in connexion with meat, and it is well known* that at the present time meat is very high in price. 11683 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - I saw yesterday that mutton was selling at 4d. per lb. 11683 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I will quote the price of mutton later on. 11683 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - That is all the primary producer is receiving. 11683 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - To-day the cool stores of Australia are packed with. meat from floor to ceiling, and we are paying more for meat in Australia than is being paid for similar meat after exportation to Great Britain. The food exploiter is abroad in every way, and I shall quote one or two instances in support of my statement. Price-fixing was established during war-time by this Parliament, but no sooner had the Armistice been signed than the Price-fixing Board was abolished. High prices are still ruling, and so much so that at present we are in a state of industrial turmoil. Many charges have been made against the seamen who are endeavouring to improve their conditions of employment. As a result of their ceasing work, other industries have been held up, but I am surprised that even a greater number of workmen in Australia have not revolted against the prevailing conditions. The cost of living in Australia is so great that it is impossible for many to meet it, and I am surprised that the workmen engaged in other industries have not acted similarly. The seamen have been upbraided with not going to the Arbitration Court, but there are people in Australia who have increased the prices of butter, sugar, and other commodities without reference to any tribunal. Here is a quotation showing the profits received by the shipping companies during the war. There was no submission of their case to arbitration. The particulars are given under the heading of " Shipping Sharks. Millions Yearly from Excessive Charges. Shipping Companies' Profits." In connexion with the seamen's strike it is interesting to note what profits the shipping companies have made during the war period. That is in relation, of course, to their plea that they cannot concede the men's demands, and with respect to their action in raising fares and freight, in some cases, already. I have been asked more than once in this chamber to give the names and particulars of the companies. They are as follows: - Adelaide Steamship Company - profits, 1914, £43,754; 1918, £77,504. Orient Steam Navigation Company - balance carried forward, 1916, £96,996; 1918, £115,073. 11684 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - Order ! How does the honorable senator connect those particulars with the Bill under discussion? 11684 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The Measure is entitled the Commercial Activities Bill, sir. 11684 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Its scope is very wide, but I can find no reference to shipping except incidentally- 11684 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Except that some of these companies were engaged in the transport of wheat, and wheat is one of the matters dealt with in the Bill. My shipping information continues: - Burns, Philp, and Company - net profit, 1914, £121,053; 1918, £183,820; funds, reserve, 1914, £35,000; 1918, £75,000; reserve fund, 1914, £65,000; 1918, £225,000. Howard Smith and Company -net earnings, 1916, £184,481; 1918, £206,794; transferred to dividend funds, 1916, £184,481; 1918, £206,794; transferred to dividend funds, 1916, £4,313; 1918, £17,004. Huddart, Parker and Company - net profit, 1914. £57,000; 1918, £87,000;. dividends, 1914, £57,000; 1918, £87,000; reserve for contingencies, 1914, £30,500; 1918, £131,200. Melbourne Steamship Company - net profit, 1914, £116,000; 1918, £162,000; brought forward, 1914, £5,700; 1918, £42,000; dividend, 1914, £105,000; 1918, £155,000. Surely dairy produce and the price of sugar have something to do with the cost of living, I propose to quote certain figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician. Knibbs' report for May indicates the changes which have taken place during that month in the prices of forty-six articles of foodstuffs and groceries. It appears that there has been a general increase of . 6 per cent, as compared with April of this year. In Queensland, Tasmania, and Victoria there have been small decreases, the greatest of which occurred in Victoria. In New South Wales there was an increase of 1 per cent. The South Australian increase amounted to Is. 6d. per cent. The Western Australian increase was 11.1 per cent. 11684 JYR 0 0 FAIRBAIRN, George Senator Fairbairn - That was caused by the strike. The cattle could not be brought down. 11684 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - At the time to which I refer there was no strike. There has been a general increase of 10.2 per cent, as compared with May last year. The percentage increases are: - Western Australia, 22.8; Queensland, 16.2; New South Wales, 13.5; Victoria, 5; South Australia, 4.9; and Tasmania, 2.8. There has been a general increase of 45.7 per cent, since the outbreak of the war. This Bill might have gone further than it seeks to do, for while sugar and dairy produce are important factors of domestic expenditure, it must be admitted that the present industrial dispute has not been the cause of the vastly increased cost of living. Prices in practically every direction were rising by leaps and bounds, and had there been no seamen's dispute there would still have been increases. If we are to legislate in respect to commercial activities at all, we should " go the whole hog." Only one Government in the whole of Australia has endeavoured to grapple with the situation. In Queensland to-day there is a Bill before the Parliament having reference to all the domestic necessities of the people. Why was not tobacco included within the scope of this measure? The British-Australasian Tobacco Company made the Government a free gift of £30,000 for Repatriation. The latest issue of Stead's discloses the results of two years' trading. In March, 1918, the net profits amounted to £555,315. In 1919 the net profits had risen to £561,136. Shares in subsidiary companies represented £4,769,470. The capital of that company totals £5,254,000. During the year in which it was stated that that company would have to close its doors if an increase in the price of its manufactures was not made, the concern showed a net profit of more than £561,000. The balance-sheet of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company has just been published. The profits for the Australian company, acting only as " agents " for the Federal Government, totalled £310,681 for the year - a record in the history of the company. For the same company, trading as the Fiji and New Zealand Company, the year's profits amounted to £288,081. This latter company, although it has been in existence for less than three years, has loans and investments in other companies amounting to £1,690,724. The assets of the two concerns - up to 1916 they were trading as one - amounted to over £12,000,000. Such is Government control as exercised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) ! I wish now to refer to the banks in Australia. After all, they are behind this Government, and have been behind other Governments in financing Government concerns. The banks have been at the back of the Wool Pool and the wheat scheme. I think I shall be in order in quoting a statement relating to our private banks. It reads - Six banks in Australia have so increased their charges to the public that in the last two years, to go no further back, they have increased their reserves from £10,900,000 to £13,000,000 after paying all dividends on a liberal scale and all the taxes that were supposed to hit the fat man in his sorest place. I come now to the position of the pastoralists. The following extract is taken from a leading article in the Melbourne Age :- The earnings and profits of five pastoral companies in Australia during the last five years were as follow : - 1914, £871,926, as against £789,490; 1915. £765,699, as against £612,498; 1916, £863,046, as against £615,017: 1917, £1,216,417, as against £784,546; and 1918, £1,303,983, as against £822,902. 11685 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Can the honorable senator give us the figures in regard to the next five years ? 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I venture to say that during the past five years these persons have made sufficient profits to carry them safely over the next ten years. The average person in Australia has contributed largely, and is still contributing, to their huge profits. 11685 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - What will the average person contribute to their losses, df they make any, on account of the impending drought? 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - They have made a profit of £3,500,000 on net earnings of £5,000,000. Surely that is a record in profiteering. 11685 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - I like to hear of everybody making money. 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Even of the profiteer who makes it at the expense of the community. 11685 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Is not everybody in business for the purpose of profit? 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The extract continues - Bums, Philp, and Company is a typical Australian firm carrying goods in their vessels to the various ports, selling to the Australian people tea, rice, cream of tartar, and so on. For all these things they increased the price to the consumer, in some cases, by over 200 per cent. In the process they have made enormous profits. Their balance-sheet shows that in 1917 the net profit was £145,880, m 1919 the net profit was £204,968. 11685 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Are not these people taxed under the War-time Profits Tax Act? 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am sorry that they are not taxed in the way that they should be. Their shares in other companies two years ago were £419,422; now they have invested £484,795. I might go on quoting similar figures ad lib . then . I come now to a comparison of the selling prices of meat at the State shops of the Ryan Government in Queensland with the selling prices at the Perth shops. 11685 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - Do not forget that the Queensland Government sells only frozen meat. 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - On the 1st July, at Ryan's shops, the price of the best sirloin was 6½d. per lb., at the Perth shops it was ls. 4d. Prime ribs at the Ryan shops were sold at 4½d. per lb., whereas in the Perth shops the price was lid. per lb. Chuck ribs at the Ryan shops were 3-|d. per lb., at the Perth shops they were lOd. per lb. Rump steak at the Ryan shops was 7½d. per lb., at the Perth shops it was ls. 4d. per lb. Beef steak at the Ryan shops was 5½d. per lb., at the Perth shops it was lid. per lb. Topside at the Ryan shops was 5d. per lb., at the Perth shops it was lid. ,per lb. 11685 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Will the honorable senator tell me how he connects his remarks with the Bill which is under consideration ? 11685 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Yes. I am dealing with the cost of living, which is intimately related to the Bill. The price of legs of mutton at the Ryan shops was 7d. per lb. ; at the Perth shops it was l0d. per lb. Shoulders of mutton at the Ryan shops were sold for 4½d. per lb.; at the Perth shops the price was 8½d. per lb. Loin chops at the Ryan shops were sold at 7d. per lb.; at the Perth shops they were1s. per lb. 11686 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - But Mr. Ryan stole his meat. 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Mr. Ryan has already answered the charge of stealing which Senator Reid has reiterated, and the Privy Council has relieved him of the odium of that charge. 11686 K2L 0 0 REID, Matthew Senator Reid - No, no. The honorable senator is referring to another case altogether. He is quite out of it. 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Let me deal now with the prices of groceries, including that of sugar. In this connexion I quote the following extract from the Melbourne Herald of the 11th August last: - GROCERY PRICES COMPARED Rises Since 1914 Shown Since . 1914 there have been substantial rises in the prices of groceries. The following table gives the average retail prices in Melbourne for July, 1914, and for June, 1919, as compiled at the office of the Commonwealth Statistician : - 11686 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens - I must ask the honorable senator not to continue in that strain. These matters are not relevant to the Bill. 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I am glad that I have finished quoting all that I intended to quote on. that subject. My object was to prove that this Bill should have included more than sugar, butter, wheat, and flax. I have endeavoured to show that all the necessaries of life are to-day at exorbitant prices, and if we are to take to ourselves the power to legislate in respect to one or two of them, we ought to take to ourselves the power to legislate in respect of all of those commodities which affect the daily lives of the people. 11686 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Does the honorable senator contend that the articles which are the subject of control under the agreements mentioned in the Bill are at an exorbitant price in Australia at present? 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Some of them. 11686 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Then where is the virtue of Government control ? 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - If the Government are going to continue their control of sugar, why not extend that control to other commodities, and make them as cheap as sugar is to-day? Under the War Precautions Act, Ministers attempted to regulate the price of different commodities, but as soon as the Armistice was signed the profiteers were relieved of the obligations which previously rested upon them. 11686 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - Is dairy produce at an exorbitant price in Australia to-day ? 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - I do not say that dairy produce is at an exorbitant price, but when the Government are attempting to exercise control over the articles enumerated in this Bill, why do they not extend that control so as to make it embrace other commodities? 11686 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - Have they really controlled the price of any of these articles ? 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Senator Mulcahy has made a most pertinent interjection. The price-fixing regulations framed by the Government under the War Precautions Act were not very good. But to a certain extent they deterred the profiteer. 11686 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - And to a certain extent they resulted in an actual raising of prices. 11686 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Only in one or two instances. What happened in those instances, however, is as nothing compared with what has happened since the repeal of the price-fixing regulations. I come now to the question of rents. We all know that the Inter-State Commission has inquired, amongst other things, into such matters as rent, clothing, groceries, meat, &c. Kent is at the base of' the increased cost of living; and whilst this Parliament may not have the power to deal with the matters now under consideration, the State Parliaments have this authority. The Government of Victoria have appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into these matters, but I am afraid it is a case of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. I will vote for the second reading of the measure, though I do not think it is constitutional. The Government could have introduced a more comprehensive Bill dealing generally with the cost of living, and trusted to the constitutionality of their position. It was, I think, wisely said by the honorable senator who preceded me, that if any person decided to test the constitutionality of this measure before the High Court, that tribunal would declare it to be ultra vires. 11687 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - If this Bill is constitutional, other attempts to control prices should be equally constitutional. 11687 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - That is what I am trying to point out. 11687 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - No. The question is, are we still in a state of war? 11687 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - What has that to do with the Bill ? If this is constitutional other measures are also. 11687 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - The question raised by Senator Mulcahy has been responsible for a division of opinion amongst lawyers. We do not know whether we are in a state of war or not. The very fact that the Government had to seek legal assistance before introducing the measure suggests that they are uncertain of their ground. 11687 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - They should have sought the co-operation of the State Parliaments. 11687 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - Senator Millen, when moving the second reading of the Repatriation Bill, observed that he' was travelling over an uncharted sea. The Government, in the Bill now under consideration, feeling no doubt that they were also about to set out on an uncharted sea, sought advice from certain legal gentlemen in Sydney as to whether the measure would be constitutional. Perhaps, a few months hence, a test case will be brought before the High Court, and some of those gentlemen may be found holding briefs to test the constitutionality of the Bill. Senator Bakhap has suggested that the State Governments should have been consulted. There was no need to do that, as the State Parliaments have sovereign rights in a matter like this. Mr. Ryan, the Premier of Queensland, is consulting nobody but his own Parliament, and he is bringing in a measure to deal with profiteering in every form. 11687 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - That is a different question altogether. 11687 JXJ 0 0 NEEDHAM, Edward Senator NEEDHAM - It is impossible to separate the operation of this Bill from the question of profiteering. I leave the matter at this stage by repeating that I shall vote for the second reading, but hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee. 11687 K18 Tasmania 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP . - This measure, which deals with four articles of primary production, and one the result of manufacturing, raises three interesting questions. The first is the validity of the arrangement entered into during the war period by virtue of the war power, which might reasonably be considered as being validly projected into a period after the termination of war. I do not think any honorable senator, irrespective of party considerations, would be against the carrying out of an agreement, valid in spirit and almost certainly valid in the letter. The second question to which I refer is whether the people who are actively engaged in producing articles that come within the scope of this Bill are satisfied with the continuance of Government control. The third question, and to me one of equal interest with the other two. is whether certain features of the Bill are, by virtue of our Constitution, valid. It seems to me it cannot be clearly demonstrated that every provision of this measure deals with an agreement which can be considered as projecting its operation into a period after hostilities have legally terminated, that is to say, after the Peace Treat-" has been properly ratified. I will not deal with the agreement phase of the question at all, because I am altogether in favour of agreements being carried out. That seems to be so evidently sound that further argument is unnecessary. 11688 JYT ALP 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FERRICKS - Would you reenact a bad agreement'? 11688 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Not necessarily, but we must carry out an agreement if it is valid. For "instance, if I entered into an agreement with the honorable senator to do a certain thing, involving loss on my part, I should, nevertheless, be legally and morally bound to discharge the obligation. 11688 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator FerricKS - The position now is, that the Senate is asked to re-enact a certain agreement. 11688 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - It is in connexion with this re-enactment of agreements that I propose to make some remarks. Certain incongruities appear in statements made respecting the satisfaction of certain classes of Australian producers with the proposed extension of Government supervision. We have been told that it is highly desirable, in the interests of the wheat-growers, to continue this form of Government cpntrol; but certain honorable senators, speaking ostensibly, and, indeed, actually, in the interests of wheatgrowers, have pointed out the serious disabilities under which those producers labour because of the existence of Government control. The one statement is certainly not compatible with the other. We have been told that our wheat-growers have suffered because they have been paid less than the world's parity for their produce. If that is so - and that is the condition arising out of this form of control - the principle itself is operating inimically to the producers of wheat. In regard to flax, wool, and the exportable surplus of our dairy produce, there are agreements for sale to the Imperial Government; and at the risk of re-stating what I have already said, I repeat that all agreements for sale to the Imperial Government, made during the currency of the war, should be carried out for the full term of their validity, and therefore there can be no doubt as to the desirability of enumerating them in the Bill. But whether, under the Australian Constitution, the projection or extension of these agreements into a period following the ratification of peace is valid, and whether legislation with regard to these agreements is within the competency of this Legislature, is quite a different matter. In the preamble of the Bill there appears the statement that, " whereas the conditions brought about by the war are still operating." That is an assertion.. It may not be a fact. An assertion by this Parliament of the .existence of a certain condition is not in itself sufficient to make an enactment, based upon it. constitutionally valid. I do not admit that the conditions brought about by the state of war are operating in Australia. 11688 KVD PROT; NAT from 1919 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator MULCAHY - Very many of them are. 11688 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Some are, and some are not. The assertion is only partially correct; and it is questionable whether legislation should be based -on general assertions which might easily be demonstrated to be only partially accurate. In regard to the constitutional phase of the Bill, beyond all doubt, there is every reason for grave consideration as to _ whether it is 'within the competency of this Parliament to do anything, in the way of re-enactment, after the ratification of the Peace terras. I have expressed the view that it is not within the competency of this Parliament to enact war legislation after peace has been legally arrived at, and I am not going to be inconsistent in my attitude towards this Bill. I say that anything in it that savours of a new enactment, with the intention of projecting its operation into the period after peace has been arrived at, is unconstitutional. I do not for a moment admit it is desirable that the Commonwealth Parliament should have power to legislate in this direction. I am going to object strenuously to any proposed extension of the powers of this Parliament for a long time to come, because anything that is sought to be done under this Bill can constitutionally and easily be performed with the consent of the States of the Commonwealth - a consent which I believe would readily be given if asked for. 11688 KKZ ALP; PROG LAB from 1928 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator GARDINER - The States promised to give us certain powers in wartime, and afterwards withdrew those promises. 11689 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - As a matter of fact, the powers of the Federal Government have been pronounced to be absolute in war time; it has been held that while a state of war existed anything could be done under the war powers of the Parliament. But I am not going to readily allow this Parliament to continue, during peace, and under the war power, legislation which we, as individual members, might think necessary. The war having ceased, the war 'power does not now exist. 11689 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - Do you forget the franchise of the Legislative Councils of the States? 11689 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - What has that to do with a matter like this? 11689 JZ9 0 0 O'KEEFE, David Senator O'Keefe - It has everything to do with it, because the Legislative Councils of the States do not represent the people. 11689 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP -Do they not ? The honorable senator must remember that the State Parliaments are sovereign Parliaments in regard to all the powers they reserved to themselves. I think that about the only sound feature of this measure is the recapitulation of certain agreements which must be valid and which must be carried out, in so far as they refer to a certain period of time. But here is a clause which I am quite certain it is beyond the competency of this Parliament to enact. I refer to clause 7 of Part IV. of the Bill, dealing with sugar. It reads - Any person who, without the consent in writing of the Treasurer, sells, or offers for sale, at any time before the prescribed date, any sugar of the grade known as 1A at a greater price per pound than the prescribed price, shall be guilty of an offence. If I were engaged in the sale of sugar some months after the ratification of the Peace Treaty and I were summoned and found guilty of an offence, by a Court of first instance, for having sold sugar at a higher price than the prescribed price, and I had the necessary money, I should have no hesitation whatever in taking the matter to the High Court. 11689 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - And the honorable senator would be sure to win his case. 11689 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - One statement made by SenatorNeedham was a truism. The Federal Government may consult eminent legal talent, all of which may eventually reach the High Court Bench or none of which may reach that Bench. But, still, a legal gentleman may pronounce an opinion which, as a High Court Judge, he would not indorse for a moment. Every one who has any knowledge of lawyers will agree that a lawyer giving an opinion and a Judge giving a decision are totally different individuals. The High Court of the Commonwealth has very properly shown itself to be very jealous of the rights of the States under the Federal Constitution. It will not read any power into the Federal Constitution merely to satisfy the desire of the Commonwealth Parliament. As the authority in the last resort, designed for that purpose, it will construe the Constitution with a proper and jealous regard for the rights of the States. I should like to know why the Government, instead of consulting this array of legal talent, did not communicate with the State Governments and point out to them the desirability, if it is desirable, of enacting such a measure as this. They might thus rapidly have obtained from them a consent, which they would not withhold, I feel sure, if it were clearly demonstrated that a clearing-up measure was required, because we still are, technically, in a state of war, and that this state subsists between the time of the declaration of peace and the ratification of the Peace Treaty. 11689 KVD 0 0 MULCAHY, Edward Senator Mulcahy - The honorable senator should not forget that there have been several conferences with State Premiers and Ministers which have been more or less futile. 11689 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - The State Premiers are not fools. Many of them gravitate eventually to the Federal Parliament and members of the State Parliaments also find their way here. If they object to a wholesale enactment which very greatly enlarges the functions of this Parliament, in all probability, it is because the proposed extension of those functions should be objected to. In order to be consistent - although consistency is not in itself such a great virtue, as some people assume it to be; and I give it its full value - I say that I do not view with anything but misgiving these constant endeavours to trench upon the constitutional powers of the States. What may have been good medicine for the nation during the war period should not be made its daily bread after peace has arrived. It does not at all follow that because a thing is necessary in time of war it is necessary in time of peace. We agreed under the War Precautions Act, by virtue of the war power of the Commonwealth Parliament, to practically suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. ' Every one is aware of the decision of the High Court. Judges to the effect that the Minister concerned might arrest and intern any one without giving any reason for his action. If that was not a practical suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act I want to know what would be so regarded. But no one will contend that in time of peace the Habeas Corpus Act should be suspended. .1 should be very sorry, as one who has profited by the tradition of British liberty, and who is here by virtue of that glorious tradition, to consent to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in time of peace. Because we consented, for instance, to the price of sugar being fixed in time of war, it does not at all follow that we should consent to the projection of that power to fix the price of sugar, by a possible straining of the powers of this Parliament, into a time of peace. As honorable senators are aware, I objected very voluminously - I do not know with what effect, or with what degree of legal force, though I believe that, if the matter were tried, the position I took up would be held to be legally sound - to the projection of the War Precautions Act into a time of peace. I held that to be constitutionally invalid, and I believe that any attempt to do anything of the sort in this measure will also be invalid as being beyond our competency. The recapitulation of the agreements in this, measure, although perhaps not unnecessary, do not add to their validity. If they are valid agreements they are Valid without inclusion in this measure. It is an exceptionally precarious position for this Legislature to take up, that it is competent for it to extend into a period of peace agreements which were of admitted validity during the time of war. I do not care if every lawyer in the Commonwealth has said it can be done, I have still my doubts whether the High Court Bench would give a similar decision. Senator Needham took up a most remarkable position. He wanted to know why, if by virtue of the war power government control had been established over the commodities enumerated in this Bill, the whole gamut of national activity should not be within the scope of this measure. He denounced the exorbitant prices of commodities of prime necessity, yet the honorable senator could not point out that any of the articles mentioned in this Bill were being sold at an exorbitant price. If dairy produce is being sold at an exorbitant price in Australia, that, in the circumstances, does not exhibit the virtue of government control. If wheat is being sold at prices unsatisfactory to the wheat producers of Australia that does not indicate virtue in government control. If sugar is being forcibly sold, so to speak, by virtue of this agreement at prices which constrain the sugar producers in Queensland to accept half the price which sugar is bringing in the outside world, it is questionable whether that is a good thing for the sugar producers of Queensland. I represent a State in which sugar is not produced. The people of Tasmania would like to be able to obtain sugar very cheaply, because it is necessary for the manufacture of jam, which is made from the small fruits, of which Tasmania is prolific. But, speaking as a member of the Senate, I do not hope for high prices for Tasmanian products and low prices for the products of Queensland. If the sugar producers of Queensland could get twice what they are getting for sugar now, I believe they would be entitled to do so. If they are constrained, at the present moment to sell sugar at a price which represents only 60 per cent, of the price obtained for uncontrolled sugar in other parts of the world, that would appear to be a bad thing for them. If, at the present time, they are satisfied to sell their sugar at a reduction of 40 per cent, on the world'6 prices, because at times they secure from the Australian Government, by, virtue of certain arrangements, a price for sugar a little higher than the world's price in normal times, that is their own business. But it does not at all follow that an agreement of this kind is a good thing for them. I should like to hear one of the representatives of the sugar industry in the Senate tell us that the sugar producers of Queensland are altogether in favour of this arrangement, and of its continuation. Such an agreement, valid under the exercise of the war power by this Parliament and by the Federal Government, must be carried out; but any projection of it into a period beyond the ratification of the Peace Treaty should not be attempted by this Parliament unless the sugar producers of Queensland are satisfied with the proposed arrangement. 11691 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - They agreed to an arrangement to last for two years. 11691 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - After the two years' period has expired, will they like to see the arrangement continued ? 11691 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - That is a matter for consideration. 11691 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - Just so; and any projection of the agreement beyond that period is a matter for consideration by this Parliament. In other words, agreements that are valid remain valid still, but any attempt to extend their validity into a period beyond the ratification of the Peace Treaty, unless it arises out of an arrangement entered into during the period- of the war, is, to my mind, invalid. I am not going to say that I entirely agree with this measure. I am not at all satisfied that Government control has been a good thing in Australia. Senator Needham was very verbose about the splendid deeds that have been performed by a certain Government in respect to the price of meat. I remember that I telegraphed from Tasmania to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Massy Greene, who was at the time Minister for Price Fixing, to the effect that their performance in regard] to the fixing of the price of meat had aroused the derision and contempt of every one in Tasmania. My butcher was charging me ls. per lb. for rump steak, as good as could be obtained anywhere, and yet, when the price was fixed, he was able to charge me ls. 3d. per lb. A measure intended to prevent any increase in the price of a commodity permitted him to charge me ls. 3d. per lb. I do not like this price-fixing business. 11691 JRW 0 0 CRAWFORD, Thomas Senator Crawford - Not after that experience. 11691 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator BAKHAP - My experience of it is that it tends to check the production of commodities. We passed a measure here called the War-time Profits Bill. I am glad to say that I washed my hands of it, because a more pernicious measure in regard to the activities of Australia was never enacted. As a result of it, industries were strangled in their infancy by the dozen. I venture to say that if we had put out of our mind all thought of the £1,000,000 or the £2,000,000 of revenue that it was expected we should get under the operation of that measure, we would have derived ten times more benefit from the enterprise of the Australian people in establishing new industries regarding which they had to go cap in hand to the Treasurer. I like not this business. Beyond the fact that I believe that a man's word should be his word; that the word of a Parliament should be its word; and that any body of producers should adhere to their agreements, I do not see any virtue in this Bill. I believe that, in some respects, it is not constitutional. I believe it to be a straining of the powers of this Parliament. I do not want any straining of the powers of this Parliament. It has many functions constitutionally conferred upon it which it has not yet exercised, and which provide an ample field for its activity, and. any trespassing upon State rights, to me as a Federalist, is abhorrent. 11691 KRZ Western Australia 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH . - I intend to support this measure, simply because it is to validate certain contracts entered into by the Commonwealth Government. During the course of the debate I have noticed that frequent references have been made to the War Precautions Act, and honorable senators have blown hot and blown cold concerning its provisions. That Act has come in for a great deal of severe criticism throughout the Commonwealth, but when it is a question of perpetuating certain of its provisions there is a general desire on the part of such critics to welcome the perpetuation, if not an extension, of its provisions. 11692 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - There is a difference between an Act of Parliament and regulations under the War Precautions Act. 11692 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - One follows the other; one is the parent and the other is the offspring. I am not in a position to offer any legal opinion on the constitutionality of the Bill, but, viewing it as an ordinary layman, with ordinary intelligence, I do not see how the contracts in question can be successfully carried out unless this Bill is passed, and the Commonwealth Government possess the authority to see that their side of the bargain is fulfilled. Supposing .Senator Bakhap's opinion holds good, and, immediately the Peace Treaty is ratified, the supreme authority of the Commonwealth ceases. If that is so, I am afraid that common sense will not influence a decision of the Supreme Court, if it will come to a similar conclusion. It is impracticable to immediately terminate contracts that have been entered into for war purposes, and it is unreasonable to say that these contracts shall cease to operate when the Peace treaty is ratified. The contracting parties must have some security, mid neither side wishes to be guilty of dishonorable repudiation. There is a vast difference between the Government retaining the power to complete contracts and stepping in with a policy of price-fixing of certain commodities. If the Government have the power to fix the price of, say, sugar, they ought to have the power to fix the price of any other commodities, such as boots, clothes and other necessaries of life. While we may consider it a very useful and necessary measure under present circumstances, there is great doubt as to its constitutionality; but I am not going to withhold my support on that account. Frequent reference has- been made to the cost of living and the limited powers contained in this measure. Whenever an outcry has arisen in connexion with high prices, I have endeavoured to discover the pros and cons of it, and have come to the conclusion that a good deal has been said that is really unwarranted. In this country at present the cost of living, within certain limitations, is a grievance, but it is not nearly so severe as it is in other countries, and particularly those which have been at war. We realize that the cost of certain commodities is far beyond what the cost of production warrants. Boot leather, woollen goods, grindery, and other raw materials produced in this country have been at a high price, but, as far as other commodities are concerned, I believe the rates charged are entirely beyond the power of any authority in the Commonwealth to either control or reduce. In proof of that, I may mention that in the Western State, in the early stages of the war, the cost of living aroused such, public comment that the Government yielded to the outcry to regulate the cost of living, and appointed a Royal Commission to make inquiries as a preliminary step. That Commission went about its work, and endeavoured to elucidate certain points, but came to the conclusion that there was nothing to discover at that particular time. The result was that the Commission fizzled out, was never resurrected, and no concerted effort was ever made to resurrect it or discover the cause of its abolition. The Australian Labour party was strongly represented on the Commission, but it ended in a fiasco, and has not reported even to this day for the reason stated. Our Queensland friends will realize that while this Bill cannot regulate the cost of living, the Queensland Government, as referred to to-night, in their laudable efforts to settle the question, will never do so effectively until the Commonwealth Government are armed with the necessary powers. They may as well try to fix the price of commodities in a Melbourne or Sydney suburb at the same rates and expect the whole city area to benefit. The suburb stands in the same relation to a city as a State does to the Commonwealth. The only effective dealing with the cost of living throughout the Commonwealth is by giving the powers required to this Parliament, and making it act through its recognised organ, the Executive Government. It is worth recalling, in connexion with the wheat question, that no effort has been made to fix the price of wheat. I wish the price had been fixed There is no reason why one commodity produced in Australia should have the advantage of a fixed fair price while others are not treated likewise. The wheat-growers are mute and docile producers. 11693 K18 0 0 BAKHAP, Thomas Senator Bakhap - They are sweated. 11693 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I believe I am right in saying they are sweated more than any other section of the community. As one who has watched the work of the Wheat Pool, since its inception by the Labour party, I am pleased to say that the work of this Pool has materially improved the position of the wheat producers. Before the Wheat Pool came into existence, and when the farmers were subjected to the tender mercies of the men who entered into honorable understandings, the farmer had to sell in the open market at something in the neighbourhood of 2s. 8d. to 2s. l0d. per bushel. Papers circulated in this State made that announcement, and many of us can recall our own experiences. I am pleased to say that since the inception of the Pool, the farmers have obtained a much better price than would have been the case had they been dealing with private firms. Reference has been made to the ravages of mice, and I am sorry Senator Pratten is not here while I am dealing with that phase of the question. When the Government entered into an agreement with the contracting firms to handle, store, and ship the wheat, it should have been distinctly understood that the firms were to deliver the wheat in good condition. If there be any deficit - we have heard that about 1,000,000 bushels have disappeared mysteriously - these firms, by virtue of the agreement, entered into by the several State Governments and indorsed by the Australian Wheat Board, should be compelled to hand over the full quantity, as they were morally and legally responsible for the deficit. In the Western State, when the wheat was being destroyed by mice, it was the chief concern of the firms handling it to try to escape their obligations under the agreement, 'which made them responsible for damage by mice. If the agreement entered into with those firms by the four wheat-producing States is strictly adhered to and rightly interpreted, they should return every bushel received. I do not see why the Commonwealth Government or the farmers should be responsible for the loss. If the firms are not prepared to insure the grain against damage, that is their business and not that of the farmers. Like the previous speaker, I think we shall have to look into the question of the sugar agreement and that of price-fixing very carefully. It is only in the case of happenings of an abnormal character that price-fixing is warranted at all. The rates charged here are not the result of anything that has happened in this country. The prices charged for articles produced beyond the Commonwealth have increased from 100 to 300 per cent. and it was a case of either buying them at the high price or not purchasing at all. Many of these articles were used in the manufacture of other articles, and their high cost was reflected in the price of those other articles. I had occasion when last in Western Australia to price ordinary working shirts, and was informed that they were being sold at 7s. l1d. I had one of those shirts. I saw some which were worn out within a fortnight. I took them to the leading draper in Perth, from whom they had been purchased, and I asked what he meant by sending out such material at such a figure. He called for the head of the department concerned, and in my presence asked for an explanation. That individual stated that the shirts had been purchased from a Manchester house at a little over 7s. each, and that the Perth firm's profit was only a matter of pence per shirt. The head of the department added that exactly similar shirts had been sold prior to the war at 2s. lOd. each, and that the firm had made a greater profit upon them while selling at that price than in selling to me at 7s. lid. each. Similar evidence was tendered by the same representative of that Perth firm before the Price-Fixing Commission, which did not complete its labours. I mention that to show that my facts are undoubtedly correct. I have referred to this matter also to demonstrate that a number of articles which constitute the necessaries of life have been purchased outside Australia, and also that material bought outside Australia has commanded prices beyond the power of any authority within Australia to regulate. When we talk of the increased cost of living, we should remember that we have been, and are still, suffering from the inevitable consequences of warfare. We in Australia do not know what war is, so far as the increased prices of all things that we eat and drink and wear are concerned. A good deal was said by Senator Gardiner about the conveyance of wheat. His remarks were to the effect that the ships purchased by the Commonwealth Government should have been employed in the carriage of the farmers' wheat on terms lower than the freight rates of other ships plying in competition. Senator Gardiner must be aware that those Commonwealth vessels came under the automatic supervision of the Comptroller of Shipping in England. There are fixed rates of freight for given distances, all round the world. The Commonwealth shipping authorities are bound to comply with those conditions. I would like to be informed by Senator Gardiner how he would propose to run the Commonwealth Steamship Line if he intended to charge lower freight rates than shipping firms in competition with the Commonwealth craft. I understand that the Commonwealth ships did not carry more than a fractional portion of the wheat exported from Australia. It would .be hard to justify our action in providing the Australian farmer only with the benefits accruing from lower freight charges in respect to our vessels. Those ships would be carrying our wheat one way, and bringing back overseas merchandise to Australia. Among that merchandise there would be, for example, mining machinery. Who will say that mining in this country is not entitled to all possible encouragement? As the result of the lack of cyanide in Western Australia, the mines on the Golden Mile were at one stage in a precarious position. Are those mines to receive no consideration in the matter of back-loading, after our vessels have conveyed Australian wheat at reduced freights to England? Why should the Commonwealth ships be called on, except for the purpose of keeping freights and fares in check, to run at much lower freight rates than the ships of other companies and countries? 11694 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - Look at the profits of the private shipping companies, and you will realize that they have been the greatest profiteers throughout the war. 11694 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - Although I want to see a fair thing done by the farmers, I do not wish it brought about in a manner wholly impracticable. I shall be looking for Senator Gardiner's support when I ask the Senate to place the wheat industry in Australia on a better footing than hitherto. But, in regard to freight, I do not see how it will be practicable for the farmers to receive special advantages in the overseas carriage of their wheat while other producers in Australia do not receive proportionate benefits in relation to the return freight rates of Commonwealth vessels. With respect to Queensland, and to the high cost of living there, I have been pleased to note how prices were kept low for so long a period. As the war developed, however, I noted that in that State prices constantly and monotonously increased, until at last the cost of living has become higher than in any of the other States. Why is that so? The Government of Queensland to-day are in the unique position that if they really desired to stem the continuous rise in the cost of commodities they can do so, despite the activities of the Commonwealth Government. By an enactment of the Kidston Government, power was placed with the dominant party in Queensland to carry through the Legislative Council any measure which that party deemed to be in the public interest. The question may be naturally asked, why the dominant party in Queensland has not set an example to the other States? 11695 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - It was doing so until 1917, when the result of the elections was to give Mr. Hughes a majority, so that he was able to pass a "War Precautions Act and regulations, which took all power from the Queensland Government, and up went the cost of living. 11695 JU7 0 0 DE LARGIE, Hugh Senator de Largie - That could not prevent the State Parliament from passing a law of its own, and dealing with the price of living independently. 11695 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I am glad that Senator Ferricks has provided me with the explanation; but it is an unfortunate one. The true position is this: When the relative powers of the Federal and State Arbitration Courts were called into question, and the High Court was appealed to, the latter held that the State tribunals could concurrently fix rates and conditions of labour, always provided that they did not fix a lower rate than that fixed by the Commonwealth. With respect to the cost of living, the true, legal, and constitutional position is that, though the Federal authority may fix prices at a certain m'aximum, it is still competent for the State authority to step in, and, if it thinks that a lower figure can be reasonably set for 'the same necessary articles of living, it may take action, and that power of action will stand unchallengeable. I secured that opinion from one of the highest legal authorities in Australia; and it has fortified my contention that if the cost of living is really a grievance in Queensland - and it inevitably must be, seeing that increases have been greater there than in any of the other States - the Queensland Labour Government could have used their undoubted powers to fix the cost of living to their own liking. 11695 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - They were getting on splendidly until the War Precautions Act took the power out of their hands. 11695 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - The other States are in no such unique and happy position as is Queensland, for they have their Legislative Councils to contend with, and those bodies can exercise the final veto upon legislative matters, and are virtually dictators. In Queensland, however, the dominant party in the Lower House can put through any measure which it sets its mind upon, in the interest of the public, despite the views of the Legislative Council. What is exercising my mind, therefore, is to discover a good reason why the Queensland Government have not set an example to the remainder of Australia by dealing with the cost of living in an effective manner, seeing that they have the undoubted power despite anything which Mr. Hughes may have done, or may be in a position tq do. 11695 JYT 0 0 FERRICKS, Myles Senator Ferricks - Despite the War Precautions Act and its regulations? 11695 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I am merely tendering the advice that Mr. Ryan has the power of action, and that he may set it moving to-morrow, and that he has had such power for the past four years; and, further, that he has left that power remain dormant while prices have soared above those in any of the other States. If is for Queensland to sweep its own front doorstep before it sets out to criticise the state of affairs in front of the doors of the other States or the Commonwealth. Now a word or two as to fixing prices in any way which will be likely to exercise a material effect upon the cost of living. My own view is that we shall have to treat this question very warily. Taking it all in all I do not believe it is practicable to fix prices in any way that will give general satisfaction. Let us follow the admirable example set by the British Government, which has just passed a Bill through the House of Commons with a view to preventing profiteering. I believe such power can be more successfully employed as a measure to frighten than a measure to operate. In certain instances I have no doubt that effective action can be taken. But as for enacting any measure which will prove practicable in operation over a wide range of circumstances, and that will satisfactorily influence prices, I say that any attempt in that direction will be extreme folly. The thing- has been tried over and over again, and has always been tried in vain. There are only four industries mentioned in this Bill, and in respect of two of them it is proposed to fix prices. Other industries are left out in the cold. It is on behalf of these other industries that I intend to raise my voice in this Chamber later on. We cannot insure fair play all round if we single out a couple of industries for special treatment. When we adopt that course we must necessarily impose a handicap upon other industries. Take, for example, the sugar industry, the coal industry, and the carrying industry. Senator Ferricks told us this afternoon that the price of sugar had automatically and progressively increased from £14 per ton to £21 per ton. Who is paying that increased price? The taxpayers of this country. That expenditure has been the means of bringing under cultivation some of the richest lands in the Commonwealth. But it must be borne in mind that those who are engaged in cereal growing have to earn their livelihood upon the poorer lands of the Commonwealth, and as Henry Lawson says,. " Their struggle with the elements is everlasting war." While the sugar industry, the coal industry,, the maritime carrying industry, and other allied and secondary industries are singled out for special treatment in- the way of having the prices of their commodities fixed,, and conditions imposed, of an advantageous character, other industries are left alone or seriously handicapped. Let me cite my own case as an example.. Twenty-five years ago I was going to sea. I worked on. this coast for £7f per month. Very much less work than I did then is being done- to-day for double that amount. In other respects the conditions- of the seamen have vastly improved. What hae- happened in other industries? What is the position of the miner in. North Queensland, or "Western Australia, or Southern Tasmania? It can be said with absolute truth that he is not one whit better off than he was twenty-five years ago, whereas the position of the men engaged in the industries I have referred to has been improved beyond measure. 11696 KKZ 0 0 GARDINER, Albert Senator Gardiner - The metalliferous miner in New South Wales is much better off than he was twenty-five years ago. 11696 KRZ 0 0 LYNCH, Patrick Senator LYNCH - I would like to know how he is better off. What is wanted in this country is a Bill which will enable the scales of justice to be held more evenly as between our various industries. There is a constant tendency to foster and coddle - indeed, to convert into things of a parasitic nature - certain industries at the expense of other industries which support a very much larger population. If that be progress, it is progress in a circle. If we want real progress the scales of equity will require to be poised more evenly between all our industries. Favour should be given to none, but a fair field to all. Take the case of the coal miners in New South Wales. Are not they vastly better off to-day than they were years ago, whereas the gold miner in the Golden Mile is not nearly in as good a position as he was twenty-five years ago. Such a condition of affairs cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as progress. Certain industries are advantaged beyond reason at the expense of other industries which are impoverished. I shall return to this subject at a later stage, and in the meantime shall content myself with saying that to grant particular industries most favoured conditions whilst compelling other- industries to hawk their products on the markets of the world and there to take what is offered and not what is fixed is not playing the fair game. My. voice will, therefore, be raised in the future in the direction of seeing that no more favoritism is extended to certain industries, because such treatment inevitably means the impoverishment of other industries and the inevitable injuring of general prosperity. Debate (on motion by Senator de Largie) adjourned. 11697 adjournment Influenza Outbreak in Tasmania - Postal Facilities in Southern Tasmania. Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed - That the Senate do now adjourn. 11697 KPE 0 0 KEATING, John Senator KEATING - Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) make a statement in reply to the question which I put to him to-day ? 11697 JYF Tasmania 0 0 EARLE, John Senator EARLE .- I desire to direct attention to what I regard as a policy of mistaken economy on the part of the Postal Department. I have frequently had to appeal against various efforts by that Department to save money, but the latest incident which has come under my notice relates to the curtailment of postal facilities to a considerable number of persons in the southern portion of Tasmania. The particular places to which I refer are Woodstock and Craddock. These centres are on the way from Hobart to Cygnet, and although the mail motor passes these offices twice a day, their postal services have been curtailed to one mail daily. The schools in these districts have a regular attendance of from forty-five to fifty pupils. That, of course, is a very important matter. At Craddock there are always from 130 to 140 votes recorded, showing that there are that number of adults resident in the district. Seeing that the cost of these mail services to the Department must be very small indeed, consideration ought certainly be extended to that number of people. In criticising the position my correspondent advances the argument that the only saving which can possibly be effected by the reduction of the mail service hitherto in existence will be represented by the cost of the string and sealing-wax by which the mail bags are secured once a day. I direct the attention of the Government to this matter because I believe that the policy which they are adopting is a wrong one. One of the main problems with which they are confronted is the decentralization of population. Our mail services are a very important factor in inducing people to settle in: large centres of population. In our larger cities, for example, there are three mail deliveries daily, whereas country residents, who have to suffer many disabilities, receive only one delivery. If this matter be brought before the Postmaster-General, and Ministers stress the importance of making life as agreeable as possible to the residents of our rural areas, I feel sure that the Postmaster-General will recognise the justice of what I have said. SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria - Vice-President of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence) [9.58]. - In reply to the inquiry by Senator Keating regarding the outbreak of influenza from Tasmania, I have received the following statement from the Comptroller- General of Customs, who is closely connected with the Quarantine Department : - The presence of influenza in Tasmania having been officially notified by the Tasmanian health authorities, a proclamation was passed at the Executive Council on 20th August declaring the State of Tasmania to be infected with influenza. The Government of Tasmania has been informed that the Commonwealth Government now intends to assume control of the Inter-State traffic between Tasmania and the Commonwealth, and correspondence is proceeding with the view of the date being fixed on which detention of passengers in quarantine will cease. The restrictions on passengers from Tasmania will then be limited to medical inspection and travelling under permit, and on the arrival of passengers in another State they will be subject to quarantine surveillance for three days. From reports received, it appears that influenza is prevalent in all parts of the State, and that several deaths have occurred. In reply to the request of Senator Earle, I will have his remarks brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General, and hope to be able to furnish him with a reply in the course of a few days. Question resolved in the affirmative. 11697 21:59:00 Senate adjourned at 9.59 p.m.