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, 22 October 1970


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock - Order! I do not want to stop the honourable member from making his speech. But as he pointed out earlier, the Bill before the House is merely for a retrospective payment of bounty. I do not want the debate to develop into a full scale debate in regard to superphosphate fertiliser, the price paid to the farmer, and matters such as that.


Dr PATTERSON - Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your guidance. I was only pointing out - this is important because it affects the resellers too - that of this bounty of $12 a ton approximately $5 is estimated to gc to the farmer and $2 to the manufacturer. The British Phosphate Commission would probably receive about $1, and the Nauruans, based on the import parity price, would receive $3 to $4. I think it can be validly argued that although a straight discount is made from the overall price, the farmer does not necessarily benefit. The Opposition believes that the amendment to the Act is needed, as it fills a gap. I would have liked to range wider than 1 have done because the study of phosphate and nitrogen fertilisers is of great value to me, particularly their application to pasture work. But if I were to range wider I am sure that you would pull me up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Friday. 23 October 1970







Suggest corrections