DAIRY LEGISLATION

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 35, 21 November 1934, Page 3

DAIRY LEGISLATION

REVIEWED BY MR ARMSTRONG. NO REAL ASSISTANCE GIVEN. Opening his Canterbury tour, Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P. (president of the New Zealand Labour Party), addressed a fair attendance at the Tailored Street Hall, Ashburton, last evening. The chair was occupied by the Mayor (Mr W. H. Woods).

Prior to the address, Mr C. J. Rudd made an appeal for members and for funds, end. stated that unless there was tangible evidence of support for the Labour Party in this district there might not be any Labour candidate at the next election.

The chairman referred to the disparity between city and country allocations for relief workers, and said that no amount of agitation had been able to move the powers that be. Mr Armstrong said: that the further one went from the main centres 'the smaller was the allocation. He did not want to see the city men get less than they were now, but he did not want the Ashburton men to be getting less than the men in the cities. There was no justification for a difference of treatment, and he had fought for a policy of uniform grants. Mr Armstrong went on to discuss some of the more important of the legislation passed during the last session, of Parliament. He said he was very much concerned regarding the dairy industry, that industry on which New Zealand depended more than on any other. It was time something was done to lift the burden of the man on the land. The speaker went on to attack the way the debate on the Dairy Commission's [report had been treated by the newspapers. There was nothing in the report and nothing in the legislation that had been passed aiming to assist the dairymen. It was no use giving assistance in a year's time; it was wanted now, before the men were starved off the laud. There was nothing to add to the price of butter-fat. There was"only one sure thing under the new Act, and that was power to further tax, or levy, the dairy farmer, who was entitled to a guarantee of payable wages, as v much as the men in secondary industries were guaranteed a price in return for their work. The Act aimed at something that was an economic impossibility. The human value of butter was is Od to-day just as much, as it was a few years ago.

The farmer was paying to-day, more than he contracted to pay when ho took over his land, and the speaker attributed this to the action of the moneylenders. The position was manmade and the country could set xt right just so soon as it had the will to do so. It was agreed that the farmers of New Zealand were the greatest producers in the world, but never was there a time when they were worse off than they were at present.

The Commission's report said that it would materially affect the position it the producers would raise tne quality of their products. What had tne experts been doing all these years, if this were so? The farmer had been told to put his head down, and work harder, to utilise science, and he had done these things, but now the prices offered were only half those of former times. Now, the cry! was for better quality. Would he oo any better oil, if he did so? A committee, with the powers of Mussolini, had been handed the control of the farms. It was not inefficiency on the part of tne farmer that was the cause of the trouble; it was the dunder-headed organisation of Parliament. The farmer would have to foot the bill to meet the expenses of the committee.that had been set up for five years. The farmers of this country did not realise the far-reaching effects of the report and the legislation that had been passed. The committee would have full control of sales and of production, power to make levies and appoint instructors, with the powers of inspectors. There was no limit to the powers, and the Government itself would not be able to stop it. There was a tendency to land the farmer deeper in debt than lie was at the present time, and all the time there were millions of people in the world starving because there was over-pro-duction. Surplus stocks were being destroyed and now the latest suggestion was to murder 180,000 dairy cows in Zealand in order to improve the breed, at a cost of £700,000 to the State. That was what the Government called a gift! The Labour Party had for long advocated some of the Commission's recommendations, but with them a guaranteed price of produce. The Government, however, said that that was an economic impossibility. The wheat growers had something of a guaranteed price, so why should not the other producers be similarly treated. J lie Labour Party, the speaker claimed, could do this, if it were given a chance, and it would not levy tlie people to do it. Mr Armstrong went into details of the proposals under the new Act, pointing out how the Dairy Commission had in no v. ay been able to assist the dairy industry to get away from its difficulties. In reality, it was merelv leading to the serfdom of the farmers. The capitalist system was crumbling because of its own weight; it had failed hopelessly. There were left Socialism—or slavery. Mr Armstrong answered a number or questions, and he was accorded a heartv vote of thanks for his instructive outline of the subjects he had touched upon.