Farmers' parliaments and country conferences: attempts by New South Wales Labor in the 1920s and 1930s to communicate with the countryside

Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Dec, 2004 by Ken Turner

Cabinet in mid January pressed the parliamentary draftsman to accelerate preparation of a Marketing Bill and a Milk Bill. Considering the possibility of another meeting in 1927, on 22 March Dunn reported that the financial costs of the Bathurst Conference had not been excessive. Preparations would have to be hurried for a meeting by September (the latest practicable time, given harvesting and shearing requirements). He felt that advantages already attained might be imperilled in the more partisan context of an approaching election. The question returned to the agenda at the 30 June Cabinet meeting but was not acted upon. (15)

Inside Parliament, Dunn worked hard to have the legitimacy of his reforms recognised. Presenting his Dried Fruits Bill, Dunn appealed to the authority of the Bathurst Conference and the example of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. In addition, he described it as 'largely a Committee Bill' to which he would accept reasonable amendments. When Bavin (Ryde) described it as an unsatisfactory alternative to voluntary cooperation by growers, Dunn responded: 'I wish they would do that; it would save a lot of trouble'. (16)

The Opposition tried to weaken the force of the appeal to Bathurst Conference legitimacy, either by discounting its representativeness or by arguing that the proposed legislation was not in accord with its recommendations. Sometimes the rejection was doctrinaire, like that of J. G. D. Arkins (St. George) who saw the proposed board as 'another haven of rest for political dead beats, derelicts and renegades'. (17) Opposition Leader T. R. Bavin sought to ensure that the Bathurst Conference's cloak of legitimacy be admitted only after careful scrutiny of proposals allegedly based upon it. Country Party Leader E.A. Buttenshaw (Murrumbidgee) was ready to respond to the Minister's plea for constructive help. H. J. Bate (Goulburn) conceded that Loughlin had assembled the Bathurst Conference with the best of intentions. Yet since many of the usual spokesmen for country interests had not been there its representativeness was 'open to the greatest criticism'. Moreover, the Bill did not conform to those resolutions in important respects. (18)

The powerful legitimising force of the Bathurst Conference and Dunn's own conciliatory presentation of his Dried Fruits Bill led to its successful enactment. Again Dunn conceded that his Marketing of Primary Products Bill was 'experimental', although such legislation had been operating in Queensland for four or five years. He added: 'I am placing it before the House with a view to getting assistance from members of the Opposition, so that it may be remedied where it is defective'. (19) Bavin, whose 1913 Royal Commission on Food Supply and Distribution had been quoted by Dunn as further justification for the Bill, appreciated the Minister's readiness to meet Opposition requests for information and for time for full consideration of the Bill. He welcomed the Bill but argued that it did not correspond exactly with Lang's 1925 policy speech or the recommendations of the Bathurst Conference. Even growers had not been adequately represented, let alone consumers. The final Executive Committee's report misrepresented the findings of its sectional committees. Moreover it was far too easy to lay all the blame on middlemen; the requisite examination of the whole machinery of marketing and distribution necessitated the representation of distributors. R. T. Gillies (Byron) retorted: 'At a conference which was designed to eliminate the middleman it would be absurd to give him representation.' (20) After numerous amendments, the Bill passed both Houses by 11 March.