I move amendment No. 11:—
After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The report to be furnished as aforesaid shall contain—
(a) the name of every mare served by any sire the property of the company, the name and address of the owner of every such mare and the fee received from each such owner for such service;
(b) the name of every sire which served a mare the property of the company, the name and address of the owner of such sire and the fee paid for such service;
(c) the name of each sire or mare purchased (for the purpose of breeding) by the company, the name and address of the person from whom the same was purchased, the amount paid therefor, the method of purchase and the amount of the commission, if any, paid to any person in respect of such purchase;
(d) the name of each horse sold by the company, the name and address of the person to whom the same was sold, the amount received therefor, the method of sale, and the amount of the commission, if any, paid by the company or so far as the company is aware by the purchaser, to any person in respect of such person.
I regard this as a very vital principle. I again ask the Minister to recollect that I am not making any personal charge. One of the difficulties about these State Companies is that there could, very easily, be bribery or political corruption. The Minister will agree that the surest way of stopping the possibility of anything like that happening is to ensure that, as far as possible, the transactions of the company should see the light of day. I have worded my amendment deliberately to avoid cutting across the Minister's principle, which is that he wishes all these matters to be handed over completely to the company—matters connected with the breeding of horses, the service of sires, purchase of mares or sires, the selection of the auctioneer who is going to be responsible for purchases and sales, and so on. In connection with all these matters, there could be the very greatest corruption. I do not mean corruption in the actual sense of money passing, but I do mean corruption in the sense of favouritism, in the deliberate selection of people because they happen to be political favourites of whatever Government is in power at the time, or, as Senator Baxter suggests to me, because they are members of the same golf club. I would not go so far as to say that, but I would say personal friends of the people running the company. If it is going to be made clear to everybody in advance that all information, in relation to the company and its activities, is going to receive the full light of day, then I suggest that will prevent any possibility of what I fear ever happening.
The Minister must get a report from the company every year. The reports that I have seen—the reports that I looked over before we had a discussion here on the Minerals Act, a discussion which centred round this question of State companies—give details which are meagre in the extreme. To be quite frank, I think that probably the Departments concerned ask for other information from these companies which, technically, is not called a report, and, therefore, has not, technically, to be tabled. I am not suggesting that the Departments themselves do not get the appropriate information.
I do think that one way in which we can be absolutely certain that we are not going to have anything undesirable in the management of this company, as I believe we will not have, is to make certain that its activities will see the full light of day, and that a report will be submitted which will cover the full history of the work done by it during the year. The report should contain such particulars as will make it absolutely certain that nobody will ever attempt to do anything wrong. If they do they will know that it will be exposed at once in the report at the end of the year.