Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 18 July 1946


Mr MCDONALD (Corangamite) . - It is interesting to have the admission from the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) that this is a rough and ready method of constituting the board. The object of the amendment is to make the method less rough and more ready, and I cannot see why the representation' advocated in the amendment should hot be accepted. To say that seven representatives of the .growers "are just sufficient and that ten representatives of growers would make the board unwieldy, is too ridiculous for words. As the volume of production in Western Australia and South Australia is almost equal to that in Victoria, surely those States are entitled to similar representation. In New South Wales the production is considerably higher - than in any other States. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment because- if would improve the bill.

Mr. ARCHIECAMERON (Barker) on a State basis, why are States mentioned at all? If the object is not to give representation in accordance with the importance "of the' industry in each State, . why is it proposed to give any State more than one representative? I have never heard the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) advance a more illogical . argument ' than in . his opposition to the amendment.


Mr Pollard - The . honorable member's amendment would give three additional members.


Mr ARCHIE CAMERON - I ' suggested three members from 'New South "Wales, two each from Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia and one from Queensland. Even if the bill has been submitted to the grower's organizations and has run the gauntlet of caucus and Cabinet we should not accept what is described as a rough and- ready method. The honorable gentleman said, he did not like big boards. Perhaps better results are obtained from small boards, but why give more representation to one State than to another, why should New South Wales and Victoria which have the greater number of representatives in this House have the. greater number of representatives on the Board?







Suggest corrections