I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 1. To delete in lines 23-4 the words "and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product."
The House will remember that when we were discussing the Second Reading of this Bill, I drew attention to the extremely wide scope of the conditions and especially to the definitions in the first clause. If Senators will look at the amendments I have put down they will see that they all deal with the restriction of the commodities to be dealt with by the Bill to agricultural products. In moving these amendments I disclaim any idea whatever of interfering with the Minister for Agriculture in his desire to obtain powers to enable him to deal with the question of quotas with which, as he says, he has to deal and for which he has to get powers almost at once because the quota question is coming into prominence in connection with agricultural exports. As far as I am concerned, I have no intention whatever of interfering with the Bill, so far as these products are concerned. That is a matter that lies purely and simply between the Minister and agriculturists. The words, however, which I want to take out of Section 1 altogether go beyond anything really connected with agriculture. The section reads: "The expression agricultural product includes any product of agriculture or horticulture." Then come the words which I want deleted—"and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product." I am not interfering with the succeeding phrase, which deals with fleeces and skins of animals. If Senators read this section they will see that very large industries in this country which are totally disconnected with agriculture are brought under this Bill and can be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. If such industries are to be dealt with, they should surely be dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One can hardly expect our Minister for Agriculture, no matter what qualifications he may possess, to be able to deal with all the intricacies of most serious and large industries.
On the last occasion on which I spoke on this Bill I mentioned the industry with which I am connected and I pointed out that the Minister for Agriculture could under this Bill proceed to deal with our industry under the regulations of this Bill. That is why I have had to put forward two other amendments, one of which is to delete paragraph (c) of sub-section (1), Section 2. That paragraph says, in dealing with these various commodities, the Minister shall have power to make an order providing "for requiring persons to export to such country during any specified period or periods a specified quantity of such product." I leave out the question of agricultural products and I hold the Minister can deal with them if he deletes the words I want omitted. Again, you will see that the other sub-section which I propose to delete is a sub-section dealing with penalties which might be very severe. I would commend the attention of agriculturists to these penalties. The sub-section runs:
"The Minister may in any export order provide that where he incurs expense under this section by reason or in consequence of the failure of any person to do any specified thing which such person is authorised or required by or under such order to do, the Minister may recover such expense from such person as a simple contract debt, and the Minister may by such order provide that the certificate of the Minister shall be conclusive evidence of the incurring of such expense and of the amount of such expense."
The Minister is to proceed to recover from the individual trader who is ordered to export these things the cost of buying and exporting them. I would ask Senators to take their minds away from such matters as pigs or cattle and apply this section to the industry which I mentioned on the last day. The Minister might approach the distillers and say that it would be a good thing to sell a certain quantity of our Irish whiskey abroad. He has powers under these three sub-sections which I have mentioned to proceed to order us to sell a quantity of whiskey abroad to some unknown country. He could not possibly have any knowledge whatever as to the effect of such an order upon our trade. He says, of course, that he will appoint a committee to deal with this section. When you come into a trade such as ours and appoint other distillers or other people to sit down and require from us the whole of the information regarding everything connected with our business and expect them to decide what we are going to do with our product, I think the House will clearly see that a situation will arise with which I doubt if even the Minister himself will be capable of dealing.
I have said the Department of Industry and Commerce is the proper Department to deal with this matter. A very strange thing has happened since the last occasion on which we debated this matter. I think the House was rather amused when I pointed out that we might have a shortage of various things in this country. I said rather jokingly that we might be even short of the product with which I deal. Sometimes strange coincidences occur. The very next day we received a very friendly letter from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is trying to do his best to assist our business. It was a confidential letter connected with the trade in America, and it asked how much whiskey could be sold in America by our firm. I do not think I am disclosing anything which is confidential, because it was really a friendly letter. The Minister in that letter wanted particulars of our stocks, the price and the age of the whiskey—in fact, every thing connected with the details of our business. I am going, of course, to take this matter up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are all interested in the American business, and are doing our best to profit by it. What I am pointing out, however, is that it is a very extraordinary thing that the Minister for Agriculture should have power to do in the case of our products what he seeks to do under this Bill. I do think the Minister ought to leave us out of this. I think the Minister should define much more clearly the commodities with which he really wants to deal. I do not think the House can deal properly with the Bill unless that is done. I am sure there are included under the heading of agricultural products, sundry things which the people who deal in them would not like to be affected by this Bill, but I think it is going altogether too far to give general powers to the Minister to deal with anything which is included under the first definition clause.
I have shown that in one instance, at any rate, an industry with which I think the whole country is intimately connected can be dealt with in a way that is not desirable under this Bill. I should like to hear what the Minister's objections are to defining the articles he really wants to deal with in the Bill, and to letting the House, in these circumstances, say "yes," or "no," as regards the matters to be dealt with. I do not want to interfere with giving powers to the Minister to deal with matters with which he is competent to deal, but it is quite wrong, I suggest, to give the Minister the widespread powers which would be conferred by this Bill. Unless the Minister can explain the matter more clearly, I think we should pass these amendments and take these various articles which are connected with manufacture and not with agriculture, clean out of the Bill.