A Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly], “Dividing the wheat from the chaff …,” The Australian Financial Review, March 2, 1973, p. 3. Reprinted minus the last paragraph in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 33-35, as “State Quotas.”

Two weeks ago Fred said that had he the choice he would prefer a lower first advance for his wheat and have no quota rather than a bigger first advance coupled with a contribution of quotas. Since then my phone has been running hot with farmers telling me what they thought.

Some claim that quotas are necessary to protect the small, traditional wheat farmer. They say that if they were discontinued wheat growing would tend to shift to those States which have bigger farms or other natural advantages for wheat growing. Many see West Australian farmers as the villains of the piece. And, no doubt, small West Australian wheat growers see the big wheat producers in western New South Wales or in Queensland as the people to fear.

Eccles says this is a queer kind of argument. When he asks those who argue this way whether they really want legislation to prevent wheat being grown in those States or areas which are best suited to it, there is usually a long painful pause. Then they say they have another appointment and drift away. The argument certainly looks a bit strange put in this bald way.

The dairy industry is going through the painful process of giving birth to a quota scheme because of Britain’s impending entry to the EEC. Eccles is watching the process anxiously to see what the progeny will be like. One of the points at issue is whether quotas should be fixed on a State basis, whether, for instance, Queensland should be allotted a quota based on its past production. If this happens it will slow the shift of the industry from Queensland to Victoria which has been going on for some time.

Now Victorians are not the most popular people in Australia. They are richer than other people and they are more self-righteous. And they pinch our best footballers or play the wrong code. They indeed have many attributes that people resent, but the fact remains that Victoria has natural advantages for dairying.

The average production per cow in Victoria is about twice as high as in Queensland: 348 gallons in Queensland compared with 708 gallons in Victoria in 1971. I have heard some Queenslanders say sourly that this is because the Victorians squeeze the teats harder, but I suppose it is really because Victorians have better cow country, not that they are better at milking.

Because Victoria has these natural advantages, the industry has been gravitating towards Victoria by economic pressure. To fix Queensland quotas by past production history would be to slow this economically desirable change.

If we are going to try to arrange our farming affairs according to State boundaries we really do make nonsense of the concept of being one nation. I used to think that Section 92 of the Constitution, which forbids the erection of trade barriers between the States, was put in to help lawyers who grow rich arguing the question.

I didn’t think it really mattered to the ordinary fellow on the farm, or the simple citizen. But I can see now that the framers of our Constitution last century realised Section 92 was vital to the whole idea of us being one nation.

If we are going to regulate our farming according to what State we are in we might as well go further and divide ourselves into districts. My own district has been settled for a long time, for over 100 years.

Should I, for that reason, have a better right to grow wheat than other areas that have better natural advantages for wheat growing, just because my great-grandfather started growing wheat before other farmers who started 50, 20 or even 10 years ago? It seems an odd kind of argument when you put it that way.

Mavis wants me to enter the national anthem competition. She thinks it would give me a good opportunity to blow my own trumpet. Eccles also wants me to enter; he thinks I ought to be able to have at least one verse about tariffs.