I move amendment No. 1:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Before making an Order under this section the Minister shall first submit a draft copy of such Order to a committee representative of the growers of wheat with a request that such committee shall express their opinion on such order.
As this is a very important section of the Bill—it is, perhaps, the really important section of the Bill—it is desirable, having regard to the wide powers which are being given to the Minister under this section, that some provision should be included in the Bill to ensure that the utmost consideration is given before these powers are employed. I assume—I may not be correct—that the Orders made under this Bill by the Minister may be annulled by the House, as was the position under the Emergency Powers Orders. I should like to have confirmation on that point.
But, whether that is true or not, the powers are very substantial. They enable the Minister, not only to fix the price of wheat, but to make Orders in regard to the manner in which the grain may be disposed of, in regard to the marketing and storage of the grain and everything connected with the harvesting, sale and disposal of the crop. As this is permanent legislation and not merely a year to year enactment, I think this House should be careful to ensure that the best possible provisions should be included in it.
The provision which this amendment seeks to make is that, before making an Order under this section, the Minister shall first submit the terms of that Order to a committee representative of the growers of wheat, with a request that such committee shall express their opinion thereon. The Minister might say that it would be his intention and desire to meet representatives of the growers before taking any decision, but something more is needed than merely meeting the representatives of the growers.
I think he should lay before them the precise terms of the Order which he intends to make, so that they will know exactly what he is going to do. It would not serve any useful purpose if he were merely to meet the representatives of the growers, hear what they had to say, listen to them with all due courtesy and promise that their views would be considered, because the growers at the time would not be in a position to know what the Minister's intentions were. I think what happened in 1954 was that the growers, organised and unorganised, woke up one morning to find that an announcement had been made cutting their gross income by 15 per cent., and that Order was made at a time when everybody else's income was being increased.
The Minister may say: "Well, it is all right. I would be quite willing to meet the representatives of the growers provided I could know who they were and provided there was some machinery for electing such a committee." That would, perhaps, have been a valid argument up to this year, but, in recent months, a very representative and, I think, formidable organisation of farmers has been established. There are provisions in that organisation for the appointment of a grain committee to meet and confer which the Minister on matters such as this. Therefore, I think there is no valid objection on that ground.
It would, of course, be open to the Minister to say: "This amendment, as worded, is not entirely acceptable." I am quite willing to concede that, if the principle of the amendment is accepted, the exact drafting is not a matter of importance. What is of importance is that the growers should be informed of the terms of the Order which the Minister is about to make and should have an opportunity of discussing the exact provisions of that Order and of making recommendations thereon.
I am not suggesting—nor do I think that anybody in this House would suggest it—that the growers should have the final word. That would be an impossible position. In fixing the prices, the interests of the public as well as of the growers would have to be considered. Therefore, I assume that the only arrangement would be for the Government to have the final decision—unless, of course, the farmers or wheat growers were to be put in the same privileged position as civil servants who have their incomes fixed by an independent and disinterested tribunal: that is something which might be considered in regard to the fixation of agricultural prices, particularly wheat, milk or anything of that kind. Pending that, at least in this case, the growers should have the right to have before them, through their representative committee, a draft of the Minister's proposals so that they could express their views as to whether the proposals were right or wrong.
