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
Friday, 19 July 1946


Mr SPEAKER (Hon J S Rosevear - I nile that the amendment is out of order, and may not be debuted.


Mr TURNBULL (WIMMERA, VICTORIA) - The bill should provide that a wheat-grower who had contributed to the fund and had to withdraw from the scheme through no fault of his own should have returned to him a fair proportion of his contribution. As I have pointed out, but must repeat, a grower might have many reasons for withdrawal. I refer particularly to the temporary issue of licences as one of the principal reasons. Should the stabilization board withdraw some licences after the holders of them had contributed to the fund for two or three years, what would be-the position of those men? An account should be kept of the contributions to the fund, and the contributors should be entitled to have a large proportion returned to them, just as a man who, at the age of 58 years, mav accept the surrender value of an insurance policy which in the ordinary course would mature when he had reached the age of 60 years. Contributions should be returnable only when a grower had withdrawn from the stabilization scheme through no fault of his own. I realize that withdrawal at will could not be permitted. Upon the death of a wheatgrower, his widow might need financial aid. His estate should be credited with a just proportion of the amount he had contributed to the stabilization fund.

Those growers who may be obliged to withdraw from the scheme through no fault of their own must be protected. Failing such protection, -a definite anomaly will exist. Honorable members on this side of the House have already stated what they consider the bill should contain, and have contended that the 1945-46 crop should be excluded from the scheme.







Suggest corrections