Last night I was expressing satisfaction that the Minister for Agriculture had accepted the oft-repeated request of this Party for the stabilisation of as many of the products of agriculture as it is humanly possible to stabilise. If we are to ensure that this nation will develop, it is essential that agricultural production and industrial production must expand. There is only one way in which you can promote the expansion of agricultural production and that is by giving the producer an incentive to produce. This fundamental fact has been repeated so often that it might be considered unnecessary to state it now, but there are people in this country who believe, or profess to believe, that the farmer is not entitled to fair remuneration for his work; that the farmer must conform to the ordinary laws of supply and demand; that he must take whatever the laws of supply and demand give him by way of reward, and that the State must not interfere to any extent in order to assist the basic industry of this country. Those people base that assertion on the claim that practically everything in this country comes from the land and, because that is so, it is not in the power of the State to help the farmer; that the farmer produces everything the State possesses and, therefore, the State cannot help the farmer.
I was pointing out last night that everything the Department of Agriculture has been doing to assist agriculture over the past 40 or 50 years has been to a great extent based on some form of subsidisation. When we come to the live-stock industry, we find that the State is providing subsidies of various kinds for the improvement of pedigree stock, making provision for premium bulls, for the nomination of mares, and in various other ways public money is being utilised to subsidise the agricultural industry. If the people who claim that you cannot help the agricultural industry by subsidies are consistent, they should demand that all those schemes for the improvement of live stock, for the increased utilisation of lime and all the other schemes which have been in operation, should be abandoned. They should go further. They should, if they want to be logical, claim that such assistance as the agricultural grant for the relief of rates should be abolished. Why do not those people, if they are consistent, come here and demand that all forms of State assistance to agriculture should be abolished?
There is no consistency or logic behind the assertions which are so frequently and so dogmatically put forward in regard to agriculture. If we are to help agriculture and to help the nation, we must get the fundamental facts right and the fundamental fact is that the nation depends upon production—the production not only of agriculturists but of industrialists. It is true to say that the industrial and non-agricultural population depends to a great extent on the farmer, but it is equally true to say that the farmer depends to a great extent upon those engaged in other forms of production. For example, to quote a simple instance, where would the farmer be without the blacksmith? There is interdependence between all sections of our people and no one should claim that the farmer will be assisted by putting other sections of the community out of production. If you want to help the farmer and at the same time put other sections of the community out of production, you must get rid of those other sections and put them out of the country entirely.
About half of our population—or a little more than 50 per cent.—is engaged in agriculture, while the remainder is in the professions and in industry. Do those who claim that the State should not assist the non-agriculturists in any way also claim that we should put them out of the country? If we do not put them out and if they are not assisted and encouraged to produce, the farmer will have to carry them on his back and they will contribute nothing to the general pool of productivity. These are such simple facts that one would imagine that they could not escape being accepted. However, I believe that some members of this House who seek to discourage both agricultural and industrial production have a definite and clear-cut logical policy. They claim that our economic problems should be solved by exporting our surplus population, even to a greater extent than we have done in the past. Tens of thousands of our people have gone abroad during the past 20 years to seek a living. There would probably have been an increase of more than 500,000 in our population since the establishment of this State if we had been able to solve the problem of emigration.
If we are to make an endeavour to keep our entire population at home, we can make that endeavour only by encouraging, first of all, the primary industry, agriculture; and, secondly, by giving a certain amount of support and assistance to other industries. It has been claimed that no worth-while industry has ever grown up in this country except under free trade. The fact of the matter is that most of the secondary industries got their first fillip from Grattan's Parliament, which provided protection for them. Having been given that start, they have continued to develop. Other industries can be established now in that way and will continue to develop, so that, co-operating with agriculture, our people may become more prosperous and self-supporting. Therefore, it is satisfactory to see that the Minister realises the importance of giving the farmer a fair return for his produce.
The Minister raised questions as to how prices of certain commodities, such as dairy produce and pigs, could be guaranteed. As long as production in dairying and in the pig industry does not exceed the requirements of the home market, it is obvious that no difficulty will arise; but when we reach a stage where there is a surplus to export, a new problem will have to be solved. It was stated here recently by Deputy Dillon that that problem cannot be solved, that though there may be only 5 per cent. surplus of dairy produce or pigs for export, the price of even that small surplus must govern the price of the commodity in the home market. I have pointed out that that would be an absurd position, if it were allowed to develop. Two ways naturally suggest themselves in which we can prevent the price of dairy produce being depreciated when there is a small surplus for export at a lower price. First of all, the marketing of dairy produce must be centrally regulated. If we are to have security of price, that principle must be accepted. Then, if the price of the small exportable surplus happens to be lower than the economic price for the producer, a fund must be created to subsidise the export, either by raising the price on the home market or by obtaining a fund from another source. Since we export commodities in order to bring in other commodities, I suggest to the Minister that the money required for that fund might be obtained by imposing a levy on some of the commodities coming in. I believe that that is merely a matter of implementing the proposal for a secure price and, so long as the principle is accepted, I think there is no insurmountable difficulty.
I am of opinion that we should not confine the security of price to a few agricultural commodities such as dairy produce and pigs. Wool, for example, is a commodity which it should be easy to regulate and control, and it is a commodity for which there is a very substantial home market. I think it will be accepted that the sugar been industry will continue, and also that it will be accepted that a substantial area will continue to be devoted to the growing of wheat during the post-war period. Those two products, also, can certainly be guaranteed. In addition to that, we have one of the most important branches of agricultural industry, although it is sometimes regarded as a small branch, and that is the poultry industry, which is steadily increasing in importance. Poultry production and eggs, I think, should be safeguarded by security of price. The Department of Agriculture are making big efforts at the present time to promote increased production of eggs. The Department, in their propaganda, promised the farmer that if he increases production he will get a higher price, and that the greater the production the greater the price. Now, I should like to know how much security is behind that promise. Is it simply a vague hope, or is it something based upon the firmest assurance, either that the Department are satisfied that the export price will not decline, or that, if it does happen to decline, they are prepared to take such measures as may be necessary to safeguard that industry and give security of prices? I think the Minister should give us a definite assurance in regard to that point.
If the commodities I have mentioned are safeguarded, and if the farmer can rest assured that he is going to be reasonably remunerated for his production in those lines of productivity, then, at least, the farmer will have a safeguard in regard to his income, and can plan ahead for the future with some confidence. The people who oppose security of price for the farmer say that the farmer wants nothing from the community; that all that he wants is free trade. That is all that they can offer to the farmer instead of security of price. They say: "Give up your demands for security of price or for fair prices, and, instead, demand the removal of all taxes that would tend to increase your cost of production." Now, of course, if you are to accept that view, you must go out and demand the abolition of all taxes of every kind, because all taxes do add to the farmer's cost of production. Even what are regarded as luxury taxes, such as those on tobacco and cigarettes, add to the farmer's cost of production, because members of his family, as well as his workers, pay those taxes indirectly, and they add to the increased wages.
So that we farmers are asked to abandon a demand for something that would give us security and, having abandoned that demand, to place all our hopes upon advocating something which cannot be attained, because if you were to abolish all taxes upon the raw materials of agriculture, which are, in fact, all industrial products, since practically every industrial product is in some way or another the raw material of agriculture, we, the farmers, would be faced with the cost of supporting, out of general taxation which we would have to pay, those who are already engaged in industry and commerce.
That is the answer that is given to us when we ask for a fair price, and I think it is a fraudulent and dishonest answer to our claim. I should like to make this point perfectly clear. Suppose we were to secure the things that Deputy Dillon, for example, demands; suppose we were to get all the raw materials of agriculture wiped out: that is, all taxation on industrial production wiped out; would we not be back in exactly the same position as we were in 1931, because at that time there were very few taxes upon the raw materials of agriculture? I happened to be depending for my living out of a small farm in 1931, and I cannot say that I should like to go back to the conditions which prevailed at that time. I remember, at that time, taking fairly good bacon pigs to the market and selling them at £3 each. I do not think there is any large measure of prosperity for agriculture if it is based on the level of prices that prevailed in 1931 and subsequent years. What assurance have we that, unless some measure is taken by the State, the conditions which prevailed in 1931, 1932 and 1933, may not again prevail after the war? The small concession we are being offered in the way of reduced tariffs, and so on, would do very little to offset a complete collapse in the price of every commodity which the farmer produces.
We will be told again that when we seek that the State should intervene to assist agriculture we are making beggars and mendicants of the farmer, that we are depriving him of his independence. The very Deputy who asserted that was the same Deputy who claims to have advocated family allowances. If acceptance of State assistance, aid, or help reduces the citizen to a condition of beggary or pauperism, then surely the acceptance by every parent in this country of a family allowance deprives him of his independence and makes him a beggar and a pauper.
I think that nobody will accept that view. We are an independent community, and it is the duty of an independent community to co-operate together in every way to improve the condition of the country, and it is particularly the duty of the State to promote whatever activities are in the best interests of the State. There are two ways, and only two ways, in which the State can secure that: first of all, by seeing that production is increased, and, secondly, that it is increased along the right lines. Now, there are only two ways in which that can be achieved. The first is the totalitarian method of taking the citizen by the throat and compelling him to do whatever the State thinks is in the best national interest. The second way of achieving it is by providing some inducement or incentive to the citizen to produce along the lines which the State desires. We must adopt either of those two lines. We must either provide inducements or impose compulsion all round on the farmer, compel him to produce certain crops, compel him to produce in a certain way or to keep a certain type of stock, and in order to do that we must have an army of inspectors to see that the farmer carries out all these compulsory regulations, and behind that army of inspectors an armed body to enforce these regulalations, and concentration camps into which the farmers could be thrown if they did not carry out the wishes of the State. That is the alternative to offering decent inducement, decent incentives, to the farmer and other sections of the community to do what is in the national interest.
It might be said that the farmer is not entitled, for example, to a subsidy in order to encourage him to cultivate the land more intensively. We of this Party put forward a demand for a subsidy on tillage similar in some ways to the subsidies provided in Great Britain. The answer to that demand was that tillage pays and why should the farmer be subsidised for doing something which pays him in the ordinary course of events? The fact is that, in normal years, on a great many of the farms and a great many types of land tillage did not pay. Permanent pasture paid better. And why? Anyone who has any knowledge of farming knows that there are two ways in which it can be carried on. It can be carried on very intensively with high costs of production and a high return, or it can be carried on on the basis of the safer course of low production costs, less intensive farming and lower output, but it might perhaps be found in many cases that the farmer would make a surer profit on the basis of low costs and low output than on the basis of high production costs and high output.
Therefore, the temptation to a great many farmers, as clearheaded business men, is to adopt a system of less intensive farming, lower costs and lower output. It is possible to farm a very large farm with very little labour if a system of permanent pasture is adopted, and quite possible to make a reasonable profit—perhaps on some types of land a higher profit than would be made by an intensive system. In order to tilt the scale in favour of intensive farming, we of this Party suggested tillage subsidies. There is absolutely no difference in principle between the subsidising of tillage and the subsidising of lime or fertilisers. Both are directed towards increasing the output of the land—not by compulsion, as some people would urge, but by inducement, a reasonable inducement.
It must not be suggested that a tillage subsidy would place a burden on the community. To be justified, a subsidy of any kind must pay for itself out of the increased production it brings about. That is the governing principle which must direct State policy in regard to subsidies for production. I have no doubt whatever that the subsidising of lime repays the community, because, although the money must be found out of taxation, the effect of the increased use of lime is increased output from the land, and it is that increased output which pays the cost of the subsidy. The same applies to the subsidising of tillage— an increased output from agriculture would, over a period, cover the cost of the subsidy. I do not know why the Minister has turned down the demand for a tillage subsidy. He has, I am sure, observed how successful that system has been in Great Britain, because, even though we may look forward to a system of farming in this country based to a large extent upon the promotion of cultivated grass, even under that system, there must be a very large measure of tillage.
It has sometimes been said, perhaps by people who do not know a lot about agriculture, that permanent pasture is the curse of this country. I would not say that. I would say that bad permanent pasture is the curse of this or any other country. Permanent pasture which gives a very low return is bad not only for the farmer but for the State, and everyone will agree that an improvement in our grassland is one of the most important branches of agricultural development which ought to be tackled at once. Nature has been described as a good mother. That is true, but nature is a damn bad farmer. Deputy Hughes pointed that out yesterday when he said that the natural tendency of all land, if left to nature, is to deteriorate. Weeds, scrubs, bracken, furze and all other kinds of non-agricultural plants spring up when land is left to itself. Though not so noticeable in ordinary pasture, a lot of herbage which does not provide any feeding value whatever grows up where land is left neglected.
We will be told that this country cannot afford tillage subsidies, derating or any of the things the British farmer has obtained, because our country is poorer than England. We ought to get away from this inferiority complex. In proportion to our population and resources, we are one of the richest countries in the world. I do not think there is any country which, in proportion to population, possesses more external assets than this country, or possesses more undeveloped internal assets than this country, and we should, therefore, be able to plan for the future with confidence. There is room for expansion in agriculture to the extent of 50 per cent. at the very minimum. One can imagine what a 50 per cent. increase in the total output of the agricultural industry would mean to the entire community—not alone the farmer but the commercial and industrial population— and I, therefore, welcome the assurance the Minister has given that stability of price will be made possible as a result of the post-war planning committee's report.
I fear, however, that the Minister may be inclined to confine that protection and security to too narrow a group of agricultural products. I want to warn him that if he does, he is going to meet with an insistent demand from this Party to have the number increased. I want again to stress the point that in providing a tillage subsidy, the Minister would not alone be assisting agriculture but would be giving assistance to every section of the community. In this connection, he would be doing what Deputy Dillon so frequently advocates, and that is he would be lowering the costs of production. The farmer's costs of production would be brought down, and by doing that the Minister would enable food to be sold to our community at a cheaper rate and would enable us to export those surplus products, the price of which cannot be controlled, at competitive prices.
Another very important measure, one to which attention should be urgently directed —I do not know if the planning committee have taken it up—is the cost of distribution. A very important factor governing the farmer's costs of production is the cost of distribution, not only of the things which he requires but of those things which he has to sell. There is too wide a margin between the price the farmer gets for his produce and the price the consumer has to pay. There is also too wide a margin between the manufacturing and import prices of the things which the farmer requires and the price which he has to pay. Agriculture is a great industry, and yet it is forced to buy most of its products at a retail price. When people talk about racketeering industrialists, it might be well to point out that there is racketeering also amongst other sections of the community, particularly those who come between the farmer and the consumer—those who have the handling of his agricultural supplies and his agricultural produce. During the recent rise in live-stock prices, it is well known that people who are not actively engaged in agriculture at all, people simply engaged in the cattle trade and, to a very small extent, employed in production, reaped profits far greater than the farmers had been able to make over a period of one and a half years. Uncertainties and fluctuations in prices are to the advantage of the middleman and the trader, and operate to the disadvantage of the producer, particularly the small producer. We all know that it is difficult to regulate and control the distribution of agricultural produce. It is difficult to cut out and eliminate profiteering, but that is something that will have to be tackled in a very businesslike way.
I want to express satisfaction that we are continuing to expand the facilities for education in agriculture. I think nothing is more desirable than that those who are engaged in our main industry should have the highest expert, scientific and technical knowledge that can be obtained. I feel that in addition—perhaps it is more important than the giving of that technical training—it is essential that our young people should have a feeling of confidence that they will not be let down. We know that prior to the last European war there was growing up in this country a feeling of confidence in agriculture. For a number of years there had been steadily improving prices in agriculture. Conditions had become somewhat stabilised. The last European war improved those conditions immensely, perhaps even to too great an extent.
But since then we have passed through a period which has had the effect on our young people of making them feel that agriculture is not an industry at all, that it is something from which an intelligent person should try to escape. When we are told that we should go back to the conditions that prevailed then, that we should go back to free trade, that we should go back to the happy condition which prevailed in 1931, let us cast our minds back and think of the outlook which prevailed amongst our people in 1931. It was an outlook of despair and hopelessness, an outlook which was taken advantage of by the then Opposition Party to win over the entire farming community to their policy. I believe that if the farmers had not been in a condition of despair at that time they would not have been so easily misled by the Party that came into office soon after. We are being asked to go back to those conditions. I say most emphatically that we will never go back to them, but will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the farmer has price stability with that security which will give him confidence to expand his production, as well as confidence for our young boys and girls to get the most advanced technical knowledge so that they will make up their minds to live and work in this country. It was stated recently in this House by Deputy Dillon that we have a surplus of brains in this country, an exportable surplus, and that our policy should be to export the best brains of our people to other nations to build up other nations.
