I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name, which is:—"In Section 29 (1) to delete all after the word ‘congests' in line 36 to the end of Sub-section."
These words give the Land Commission power to interfere with the farmer in the management of his holding. As they would be applied by many, they would be applied towards more tillage. That would be undoubtedly a popular interpretation placed upon increasing the food supply, and also bearing upon the manner in which the holding has been used. On general grounds I am opposed to these words. It is an unwarranted interference with the liberty of the subject, in not allowing him to use his own property in the way he thinks best. There is a third point. There is no one capable of deciding how agricultural land can be used to the best advantage. I have been sitting for many months on the Agricultural Commission, the terms of reference of which have been to report on this question of tillage, and the possibility and desirability of increasing tillage which undoubtedly would be the effect or would be attempted if these provisions were allowed to be enacted. Now we had overwhelming evidence that in the case of almost every crop—I cannot think of any exception—the cost of production is far greater than the market price. Well, carry that to its logical consequences. If the Land Commission or the Board of Agriculture or their technical advisers, will advise the Land Commission that there is not sufficient tillage, or in their wisdom, which is largely academic, that the farming practised was not correct, they would have power to resume their retained farm and give it to people who, they consider, might use it to better advantage.
I hope in this matter I will receive the support of at least the farmer Senators, because it is a prominent plank in the programme of the Farmers' Party, that a man should be allowed to farm his land as he likes. There is a popular idea that this grass land is used improperly because it is used for grazing purposes. There is an overwhelming body of expert evidence which says that from every point of view that is the right way of farming land. In face of that I do claim that it is unwarranted for a bureaucracy—because that is what they are, and I do not mean the word in any malign sense—it is I say unwarranted for a bureaucracy to have the power to come in and say to a man "You are not farming your land in the right way." I see that these powers are welcomed, as I expected they would, in certain quarters. But look at it this way—these so-called experts in the Department of Agriculture are out of touch, most of them, with practical farming for many years. I would ask the Minister to give us evidence that any one of his officials, his expert advisers in the Board of Agriculture, who will be people from the County Instructor upwards, has done any practical work on a farm since entering the Government service. Without practical knowledge of this work, you are not competent to tell a man how to do his business. Therefore I say that this Clause is an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. It might be used, and in all probability will be used, to introduce by a side wind this dangerous innovation, the doctrine of compulsory tillage, and for that reason it should be opposed.