I suppose, Sir, that it would not be possible to imagine a more serious subject for debate in a House like this than the subject of the people's bread, especially in these times, when costs are so high and the bread supplied for the needs of the people has to be supplied in very large part out of Government funds, which means that it has to be supplied out of the money of the taxpayers. For years past the Government has provided a supply of cheap bread as one of the necessities of life and has done so by the aid of an immense subsidy, the result of which is to make bread available at something approximating to one-half of the cost of production. That has been done in the present year, as the Minister has told us, at a cost to the taxpayers of £11,000,000, a sum which represents something between one-sixth and one-seventh of the entire national income. Obviously that is a serious matter.
Bread is a necessity of life and the people must be provided with it. It is the duty of the Government to see that they get it in sufficient measure at whatever cost and one would expect everybody in the country, not only the members of the two Houses of the Legislature, but also every man of goodwill, to give careful study to the solution of the problem and to give earnest attention to seeing that that problem should be dealt with, not on a basis of seeking Party advantage, but on a basis of serving the needs of the community. Realising the magnitude of the problem and the necessity of having it studied, the Government some months ago appointed a committee of which I am chairman to inquire into this matter and report to the Minister in what way the situation could be improved. That inquiry has been proceeding and I will say a word or two about it before I conclude, but before I come to it I want to say that coming here to-night I hoped that this committee would receive some assistance from Senators, I will not say on the other side, but from Senators on every side of the House. I had hoped that some points might be put forward which would help to solve that problem or, at any rate, would be a contribution to the study that has to be made of that difficult problem.
I certainly came here to-night interested and anxious to hear what the proposers of this motion had to say about it. I must confess that the terms of the motion gave little promise that the contribution would be a valuable one because, as has been pointed out by Senator Hayes and other Senators, the proposer and seconder of that motion apparently did not understand the elements of the problem, and had apparently made no effort to understand it, because it begins with an absurd statement asking this House to protest against the withdrawal of a subsidy on a flour which has never been produced and has therefore never enjoyed a subsidy, and it goes on to ask that the subsidy be granted to flour of 72 per cent. extraction which is to be produced in the future.
The terms of the motion dispelled any idea that a serious contribution was to be made to the problem, but nevertheless hope springs eternal in the human breast. I came in the hope that Senator Hawkins and other speakers in support of the motion would add something to our sum of knowledge and contribute in some way to the solution of this difficult problem. I think that any member of the House who listened to the debate will agree that there was no such contribution. I mean no disrespect to Senator Hawkins when I say that listening to him I could only suppose that he did not understand the subject at all and with his great gifts of intelligence I can only suppose that he made no effort to understand it. I am afraid that the impression he created in my mind was that he wanted to say elsewhere to those who understood it as little as he did that there was some move to deprive the poor of bread and supply a superior type of bread to the rich at the expense of one section of the community. I have no doubt that something of that kind will be said, but Senator Hawkins or other members of the Party to which he belongs should know that this is the place where, if they have a serious contribution to the problem, it should be stated. I give him credit for not understanding what he is talking about because I have to choose between ignorance and knavery, and I think it would be more parliamentary if I attribute his speech to ignorance rather than to the other cause.
I suppose that lawyers are at a disadvantage in a Parliamentary Assembly. I have always thought that in my slight experience in the other House and my very short experience in this House. A lawyer has the silly idea that before he talks about a subject he must know something about it. He even thinks that before he makes a statement he should be able to prove it. I can only think that some Parliamentarians do not set anything like that standard before themselves before they intrude in a debate. However, Senator Hawkins probably knows something more about the bread problem now than when he started this debate.
Little really needs to be said after the explanation the Minister has given of the real nature of the Government's present position. It has, I think, commanded assent from all sides of the House.
Senator O'Dwyer made several points which showed that, while he had obviously made an effort to understand the matter and did see certain aspects and certain points connected with it, he did not understand the matter fully. It is, of course, difficult to explain in debate here, but there should be no difficulty in explaining to the Senator because he is obviously quite bona fide in the matter and anxious to learn and understand it. I hope that the same is true of Senator Hawkins.
I forbear to criticise the eloquent contribution to the debate of Senator Quirke. I appreciate that he is not the seconder of the motion on the Order Paper and that he seconded it to-night in the unavoidable absence of the seconder who had sponsored it. As such, he can be excused from making a speech on the subject, but I certainly feel justified in saying that Senator Quirke, whether he studied the problem or not, does not feel very strongly about it when he contents himself in a motion of this importance, if it is to be treated seriously, by seconding it in a formal way.
There are two parts in this proposal. The first can be ignored. I thought, in my innocence, when Senator Hawkins rose to propose the motion that he would apply himself to amending its terms so as to bring it into accordance with the facts, but apparently that was not necessary of apparently Senator Hawkins does not consider it necessary. This House is to be asked to deal with a motion protesting against the Government doing something which the Government does not propose to do and could not do because the subject-matter of the proposal does not exist. The second part of the motion remains. It asks that the Government should be urged to give a subsidy so as to enable bread of 72 per cent. extraction to be produced at the present price.
The Senator was asked if he had made any computation of the cost of that proposal to the State, and the State means the taxpayer. The taxpayer does not mean only the rich or the well-to-do or even the person with an average income. Even the very poor are taxpayers when it comes to indirect taxation—in the form of the tobacco, beer, stout and a multitude of other things which they have to purchase. Before anyone presents a proposal or asks the Government to adopt a proposal, surely he should have made some effort to estimate the cost of it, and surely he should have some proposal to make as to how the money is to be provided. The Minister told the House that this proposal, if it were carried out, would involve a subsidy of something like £13,000,000 in a year. That is something like one-fifth of the national income. Where is it going to be got? There is no use in people coming into this House or in making proposals of various kinds to increase State wages, to increase pensions or to increase social benefits, and at the end of it to halve taxation. Certainly, in this House one would expect that when approaching matters of this kind, anyone making a proposal involving a charge on the Exchequer ought to have some proposal to put before the House as to how it is to be met. We heard nothing on that from Senator Hawkins or from any speaker in support of the motion.
Therefore, it would seem to me that this motion falls to the ground. How is this House going to ask the Government to do something which the House is not prepared to show can be done within the national resources? Now, it may well be that Senator Hawkins, in reply, may make a more intelligible contribution to this debate than he did in opening it. He certainly knows, or ought to know, a good deal more about it now than he did when he opened the debate. Perhaps it is too much to hope, but still I venture to hope, that he may adopt a more reasonable attitude and may see, as I think the House in general sees, the force of the present proposals of the Government to maintain the present position in regard to bread utterly and entirely unaltered and at the same time to enable those who wish to indulge in luxuries—just as those who wish to indulge in luxuries of other kinds are free to do so—to do so in regard to bread, cakes or biscuits, especially when by doing so they will be easing the burden on their poorer brethren and will be helping the national financial situation.
I only want to say in regard to the inquiry that is proceeding, that it is a very difficult subject. If one attempts to understand such a simple thing, as it is in the finish, of how the loaf of bread is to be placed on the breakfast table, one has to travel to the ends of the earth, and one has to study a multitude of interests, some of them conflicting, and all requiring careful study. The existing structure under which the cheap loaf is provided for the people is of a very complicated kind. It is achieved at great cost to the Exchequer. That system, imperfect though it may be, works to within a degree of perfection, and it must be maintained so long as the national resources enable it to be maintained and until a better can be found. Now, the members of my committee make no pretence to be miracle workers. We have held a great number of meetings. We have listened to a great number of witnesses, to persons representing various interests all of which have to be considered. The interests of the grain importers have to be taken into account; the provision of wheat, either by importing it or the production of native wheat and the relative advantages of the two kinds of wheat, with the proper balance to be maintained between the two, must be studied. There are the interests of the millers to be considered. They have been heard by our committee. There are the interests of the bakers to be considered, and their interests are very varied and very important. There are the interests of the grocers, the retailers and the other people who sell bread. There are the interests of the consumers, in the end, which have to be considered. There are the interests of the workers in the trade. We have got information from the trade unions. All these things have to be considered and studied before it can be recommended that the existing system, under which the cheap loaf is provided, should be interfered with, if it is to be interfered with.
The present proposal has the benefit of allowing that system to continue. The cheap loaf, the bread of the people, which has been provided for years, is, as the House has heard, a palatable loaf, perhaps not the most palatable, but, taken all in all, it is adequately palatable and dietically superior to the white loaf which is claimed here to be a luxury, as it probably is. That system is being maintained in its entirety. The Minister has explained that he has been scrupulous to see that there is to be no change in the set-up under which the imported wheat brought in here at a particular price, or the native wheat bought at a particular price, is to be milled, baked or sold as flour, or sold as bread at a price which is something like half its cost to the nation. No one should urge that such an important and such a complicated system should be lightly interfered with. It is the purpose of my committee to see where that system can be improved on. We have not yet reported. It is not a matter to be reported on lightly, but we do not propose that any time should be lost that can be saved.
The present proposal has this merit, that it can stand beside the existing system, that it may bring some relief— we hope it will bring substantial relief to the Exchequer, that it will do that without injuring any section of the community, and that it will represent an advance in the standard of living of people who are able and willing to pay for it, but that it will not affect the essential situation of the wage earner or the middle-class person or the rich if they are satisfied to live moderately. I, therefore, think that unless Senator Hawkins has something new to urge in reply, now that he has heard the matter debated, that this motion ought to be rejected by the House.
