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
Wednesday, 6 October 1971
Page: 1940


Mr FOSTER (Sturt) - Mr Deputy Speaker,I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who is in charge of this measure, is not in the House. This is typical of his treatment of the industry which he and other Government members profess to support and represent. I wish to draw to the attention of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) certain matters relating to the statement that he madelast night and which he made some belated attempt to correct in this chamber during the course of his contribution this afternoon because of the wrong impression that he had given.

The honourable member asserted that 10 ships were held up for 9 days or 9 ships were hold up for 10 days in South Australia thus affecting the export of apples from that State. 1 can inform the honourable member that he most certainly is incorrect. In fact, during the season of which he spoke man hours lost on the Port Adelaide waterfront as a percentage of the man hours worked was a mere 1.8 per cent. Those hours were not all lost because of stoppages. If the honourable member saw 10 ships waiting in Port Adelaide in the last 2 years, most certainly he has been on a trip of some sort or been doing something of that nature.

I wish to make some brief reference to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) who spoke in this debate last night. Listening to the remarks of the honourable member for Denison 1 was reminded that he is a doctor. He acts on philosophies. He is a doctor of philosophy. I am reminded further that an apple a day keeps the doctor away. This is what will happen to him if he continues to address the House in the fashion in which he addressed it yesterday evening with regard to his so called support for apple growers. He spoke again of the old bogy of diversification and said that Tasmania could not continue producing apples in greater numbers. His colleagues from time to time say that production of sugar in Queensland, cotton in Western Australia and wheat in the southern half of the continent - to give 3 examples - cannot continue.

I remind the honourable member for Angas who expressed last night his bitterness towards the Premier of South Australia concerning marketing and his attitude towards national marketing schemes that-


Mr Giles - I did not mention him.


Mr FOSTER - Oh, yes, you did.


Mr Giles - I did not.


Mr FOSTER - Keep quiet! The honourable member can rise on the adjournment tonight or tomorrow night if he wishes. Is it not a fact that we have a national marketing authority not only for wheat but also for honey and sugar? Was the honourable member not a supporter of the Government - I may .not be quite correct here-


Mr Giles - You have not been correct yet.

MrFOSTER . . . which set up the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review which dealt with this matter some years ago? I refer to page 131 of the report of that Committee. The Government Parties have not yet plucked up sufficient courage to bring this matter of constitutional review before this House for debate so that something may be done on this matter. I ask the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), who is at the table, whether he would agree to the reference to 'Future Marketing Problems' as set out at page 131 of that report being incorporated in Hansard. It is an indictment against the Government. Let me quote from the report briefly, ft completely shatters the arguments of some honourable members opposite in regard to-

MrDEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks more closely to the subject matter of the Bill before the House.


Mr FOSTER - Well, I will in that case-


Mr Giles - - What is the report referred to? That might help.


Mr FOSTER - I will quote briefly, because it will be incorporated, from this report on constitutional review. The report states: 959. The case tor a Federal marketing power is all the stronger when probable future developments are taken into account.

I will say no more than that on that score. On further aspects of this report which relate to the measures before the House and to which consideration might be given by this Government, I also ask to be incorporated in Hansard, if the Minister will agree, the Committee's recommendations in paragraphs 970 and 971 relating to 'Proposed Constitutional Alteration'.







Suggest corrections