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, 30 September 1971
Page: 1780

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee) - Notwithstanding what the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) said, I do not think the questions to which he referred are being asked across the countryside. I travel throughout the Mallee electorate and have visited the Riverina electorate - I go over there now and again, sometimes even for a debate - and I have not heard these questions brought up at any time. The honourable member for Riverina probably has met some people who have asked these questions, hut generally speaking I think he has a vivid imagination. He also pointed out that it is the right amount of fertiliser applied to crops in certain areas that is important. I think the best judge of that is the efficient farmer. One may have 2 paddocks on one's farm but those paddocks may want different applications of superphosphate. You cannot have an across the board application of superphosphate. It depends on the nature of the soil. Everybody should know that. The man who works theland and knows the property is the man who can best judge what is required.

The honourable member for Riverina asked whether the farmer is getting the full benefit from the bounty and indicated that the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has full figures available on this. The honourable member for Dawson referred to me in his speech and that is why I rose to speak. He said there has been a friendly argument between the honourable member for Mallee and himself as to whether the farmer is getting the full amount of the bounty. He finished up by saying that if the farmer is getting the full amount of the bounty he will support the Bill. He intends to support the Bill now and must, therefore, think the farmer is getting the full amount of the bounty. This is logic and we must talk logically. We cannot talk in an airy fairy way. He intends to support the Bill so he must think the farmer is getting the full amount. I have not heard it said by anyone that the farmer is not getting the full amount. Superphosphate brought land in'.o greater productivity. In a kind of way that might not be noticed by some people. The honourable member for Riverina said that in 1969 or thereabouts the Government brought in the superphosphate bounty with the idea of running more sheep. Had he been in the House at that time would he have opposed the Bill? Then he said the Government applied wheat quotas. His memory is very short because at the time of World War II in 1944 the Labor Government of the day allowed the quota system to operate in Victoria. Under this system wheat farmers had to have a certificate to grow a certain amount of wheat and if they grew more than the amount shown on the certificate they could not strip it. In fact, a man named Mr P. Vaughan at Sea Lake in Victoria had a certificate for 200 acres. I have often told this story in this House. He had a crop of 50 acres which was self sown and he got in touch with the authorities and asked could he strip the 50 acres self sown. The authorities said he could provided he left 50 acres of his certified crop. Then he asked whether he could strip the 50 acres self sown and feed it to stock on his farm and the authorities said no. It is not much use the honourable member for Riverina coming into this House and saying he is against various things and that a Labor Government would do certain other things.

Mr Foster - Where were you in 1944?

Mr TURNBULL - In 1944 I was in Malaya but I have read Hansard very carefully and know what happened during that time. I read Hansard when I came back to Australia and came into this Parliament. I support this Bill to the hilt. I think it is in the best interests of primary industry.

Suggest corrections