We have heard a speech from Deputy Blowick and it is difficult to realise or imagine that he is the same person as the person who voted in this House in 1950. At that time the price of milk supplied to the creameries was 1/2 per gallon. To-day, it is 1/7 or perhaps more. Deputy Blowick voted against an increase in the price of milk when it was 1/2, and now when it is 1/7 or 1/8 he wants an increase on that. We had a statement from him about agriculture. I think that the greatest exhibition of acrimony that we have ever seen in this House was given by Deputy Blowick on this matter. I am prepared to ignore him and to ignore the antics of Deputy Rooney, and to treat this matter in a serious way.
This motion was put down as far back as November 1952. By its terms, it suggests that the findings of the Costings Commission might not be available for a very considerable time. That was one of the main objectives in putting it down, and it asked at the time for an interim increase pending the result of the costings inquiry. The sponsors of the motion at that time knew perfectly well that the costings investigation could not be completed within 12 months, because if you are carrying out an investigation into milk costings you must take a period of at least 12 months, since milk production is an all the year round operation. We knew at the time that it would be at least 12 months before the inquiry would have been completed, and that a further period would elapse before the findings of the commission could be presented. We have the position now when the costings will be available within a very short time. We also have the position that, since this motion was put down, an interim increase in the price of milk has been granted, so that the demands put forward in the motion have already been conceded.
That is the position as it stands atthe moment. As far as I am concerned, I think that this motion is completely out of date. That is a situation that can arise in regard to any motion. It was not the fault of the sponsors of the motion that the motion was not dealt with at an earlier date. That is due to the procedure of the House which provides that each motion must be taken in the order in which it is tabled. It must wait until it is reached on the Order Paper.
The position is that the very reasonable requests put forward in this motion more than 12 months ago have been conceded. The interim increase that we asked for has been granted, and the report of the Costings Tribunal will, it is expected, be delivered early in the New Year, before the milk-production season will have opened. Therefore, the position, as far as I can see it, is that there is not the case for this motion which we could have made for it if parliamentary procedure had allowed it to be taken in November, 1952.
A motion of this kind provides an opportunity for farmer-Deputies, and the House generally, to discuss the very grave question of dairying and milk production. I have no sympathy whatever with the viewpoint expressed by Deputy Blowick that it is wrong to export chocolate crumb at a remunerative price and to import butter at a lesser price. I think that is ordinary good business, and I do not see anything wrong with it. I think it would be much worse if we had the position to-day that we had some years ago, where we would have no exports of chocolate crumb at a remunerative price, and where we had to export surplus butter at a very unremunerative price, and then endeavour to relate that price to the cost of production here. I think that a sound policy in regard to dairying would be to try to avoid having any further surplus butter, by exporting it in some more remunerative form. That, of course, is difficult to do without running short in our own supply. Yet, ordinary common sense would indicate we could not endeavour to conduct the agricultural industry on the basis of exporting butter at prices that wouldnot go anywhere near covering the costs of production.
I am one of those who consistently over the years requested—and even demanded—the setting up of a costings investigation for the dairying industry. That demand was brutally turned down by the former Minister for Agriculture. It was treated in this House from time to time with scorn and ridicule, but if that costings investigation had been set up when it was demanded three years ago, we would have avoided a lot of trouble and unpleasantness in the dairying industry. However, the demand, as I say, was ruthlessly turned down, and I had to wait until the present Minister came into office to get this inquiry. To his credit be it said that almost immediately after taking office he set up this costings investigation. Also, immediately after taking office, he provided for an increase in the price of milk. That increase given in 1951 was supplemented by further increases last year, with the result that the farming community are getting 5d. a gallon more for their milk than they were when Deputy Blowick voted against a proposal to increase the price of milk.
I think those who have the interests of the dairying industry at heart and those who have the real interests of the national economy at heart should seek to secure a fair remuneration for those engaged in the dairying industry not so much by increases in prices now but by a reduction in production costs. I think that the time has come when there must be an all-out attack on production costs.
I think I agree with any Deputies who have questioned the whole question of breeding policy in regard to live stock in this State. I think it was the first Minister for Agriculture who introduced the Live-stock Breeding Act in 1925. But after going out of office, he had to warn his successors that that Act might do great harm to the dairying industry, and I think his warning has been justified to a considerable extent.
I think it is very difficult—perhaps it might be impossible—for the Department of Agriculture to impose a live-stockbreeding policy on the farming community. The farming community is a highly-intelligent and well-informed section of the community and I think we would do better, now that we have the A.I. system of live-stock breeding and since we have available to farmers the very best of all breeds of cattle, to leave it to the intelligence of the farmers to breed the best for their purposes and it would probably mean that the best type of cattle would be bred in the national interest.
I think it is foolish for people like Deputy O'Sullivan who in enumerating the various costings in regard to milk included the price of whiskey. I was under the impression that Deputy O'Sullivan used to imbibe another liquid from the bottle rather than whiskey. Of course, if you are to have freakish suggestions of that kind such as the increase in the price of whiskey and the fall in the price for maize, suggested as items which increased the cost of production, I think you will get nowhere. I hope the commission investigating costings will not adopt this absurd basis.
I was one of those who discussed at very great length with the promoters and organisers and those responsible for the milk stoppage in 1942——
