£30,000,000 A YEAR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 102, 1 May 1936, Page 9

£30,000,000 A YEAR.

PAYMENT TO FARMERS. SIR ALFRED RANSOM'S FEAR. REVOLUTIONARY MEASURE. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. According to Sir Alfred Ransom (National, Pahiatua) the speech made on Wednesday by the Prime Minister, Mr. Savage, on the Primary Products Marketing Bill revealed Mr. Savage as an idealist and a dreamer. The exMinister of Lands, speaking in the second reading debate on the bill to-night, said Mr. Savage was sincere, but he was entirely lacking in any sound principles of administration. The Minister of Finance. Mr. Nash, had not told the House-anything about the financial side of the bill, and he was sure the House was disappointed that he had not done so. The Government was going in for a system of costless credit, which involved the creation of money without any regard for financial responsibilities.

The Minister of Finance, Sir Alfred proceeded, had stated that it was necessary for the Government to keep its feet on the ground, and he agreed that it was a remarkable thing that the Minister of Finance, who was a registered accountant, was introducing a purely Agricultural Bill instead of the Minister of Agriculture, and he wanted to know the reason. Mr. Nash had had 110 farming experience whatever, as had been proved by his public utterances. The Minister of Finance had told the House that the members of the Dairy Board and the members of the Executive Commission of Agriculture had agreed to co-operate with the Government, but it would be remarkable if they had not, as those people were more or less dependent 011 the Government. They held their positions at the will of the Government. Running True to Form.

"The Labour Government in this bill is running true to form," said Sir Alfred. "The bill provides for the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. That is the dream of a lifetime to most of the members of the Labour party. Under the provisions of this bill the old and tried co-operative system of marketing by the Dairy Board and the various dairy factories is to be scrapped and the Government is going to undertake the marketing of the entire primary products of the Dominion."

Sir Alfred Ransom said that while the country had been told that the Government stood for guaranteed prices, the bill did not in any sense provide for guaranteed prices. It provided for fixed prices—prices fixed from year to year. That was not what the dairy farmers expected. iliey expected a guaranteed minimum with a free hand in the marketing of their products. The price was to be fixed by Order-in-Council and it was interesting to note that when the present Government was in Opposition it criticised the late Government for using Orders-in-Council. Since the Government had been in office it had put up a record so far as Orders-in-Council were concerned. It was necessary to remember, he proceeded, that overseas importers might not be satisfied with the system of control that was proposed. The Government, bv legislation, might dragoon the New Zealand primary producer into accepting its dictum, but it could not dragoon" Toolev Street and anv other purchasers in Great Britain. He could imagine the jubilation of the competitors of New Zealand because they would see that producers in New Zealand had been placed more or less in a straight jacket. Unquestionably, they would take full advantage of the position. Ihe country had not been told 011 what basis the price was to be fixed, whether it was to be on the last eight years or on the last ten years. There was no <|oubt that under the bill production would be increased, but the Government had not said whether it was going to control production by Order-n-Council. Violation of Ottawa. Sir Alfred said that the bill was a direct violation of the Ottawa agreement. The late Government had been able to obtain a free market for the New Zealand producer in Britain, but he could visualise that once again it nfitrht be the duty of the British Minister" 0 f Agriculture to impose a quota There could be no greater disaster for the New Zealand producer than that. There was a lot of interest as to what ■there was . it wag fixed first ,000,0W, first year ~ , gubsidv an V/hp £0 I*s 000, and that was deailitt on" "iction of the tamer. I ZzXJrsnz .z would ha\e to ere W as no eviRoserve Bank. istfir o{ Finance was dence that the . amount S°' n " to What an example or repay the c P of the people that was to .et Minister 0 f New Zealand °f Lands T g h ° e^-mitTht C ome to him and te nan < Government does not say, "P - should we? He To"2"" -o" 2 """ 5 and revolutionary.