FIGHT ON.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 106, 6 May 1936, Page 10

FIGHT ON.

URGENCY FOR BILL. THE SECOND READING. MR. COATES , OBJECTIONS. ATTITUDE OF PERSISTENCE. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The second reading debate of the Primary Product* Marketing Bill was continued in the House of Representatives from a little before 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon until a few minutes after 1 o'clock this morning. It was obvious from the commencement of the debate that there would be'a fight, Mr. Coates (National, Kaipara) objecting at the outset to urgency being extended to the bill and persisting to rise in spite of an explanation by the Minister (Mr. Savage) that his reason was to enable the debate to be carried past half-past ten during the evening session.

Twenty minutes was wasted on a point of order regarding the scope of the bill, Mr. Speaker giving a ruling to the effect that tie main principle of the measure dealt with dairy produce. Member after member of the Opposition protested, claiming that the bill dealt with primary products generally. At half-past twelve this morning an unexpected development took place when Mr. Hamilton (National, Wallace) moved the amendment published elsewhere with the object, of. referring the bill back to the Government for further consideration. Misleading Attitude Alleged. Mr. J. Thorn (Labour, Thames) said that everything that had been promised by the Labour party in the election campaign was included in the bill. Mr. Coates had> adopted a misleading attitude, in asserting that the Labour party had. no mandate. "All that part of the right hon. gentleman's speech was calculated pure he declared The thing'that the people should be frightened of was not the word "socialism", or the phrase, "the means of • production, distribution and . exchange," but the actual conditions surrounding the country—conditions that were the result of Mr. Coates' Government over a period of four or five years. Fifty thousand farmers were bankrupt—

Mr. A. S.-Richards (Government, Roskill): Liberty. /

The contention that the farmers must be treated as producers, and not as speculators, was made by Mr. D. Barnes (Government, Waitaki). He said he would admit that many of those who believed in the old economic theory would find it difficult to accept the bill, but they would have greater difficulty in finding an alternative. Under normal conditions, he estimated that of £100 earned on the farm £33 went in payment of-interest, leaving £67 for working expenses. The heavy fall in prices meant a great rise in the proportion of his income absorbed in interest. More than half of-New Zealand changed hands during the boom period . and £26,000,000 was paid out in land transfer costs.

If the farmer's income could be stabilised, said Mr. Barnes, it would go a long way towards stabilising all incomes, and while the overseas price should be considered in the scheme, it should not be the determining factor. The farmer would now have no fear of fluctuation.

Are Fanners Bankrupt? The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (National, Oroua) doubted whether the farmers were actually bankrupt. If they had been called on to meet their full liabilities in the worst of the depression they might not have been able to do so. Under the legislation which had been passed, the late Government had made provision for settlements to be brought about. Mr. Cobbe doubted whether the bill would be of permanent value to the farmers, though he agreed it would be of imirfediate benefit. The ■bill might antagonise Hew Zealand's best customers overseas, and it would not bring about the stability of industry that was promised. Why did the Government not say what the guaranteed price would be? There could be no speculation if the figure were made available, as speculation only existed when there was uncertainty. He was anxious to see that the farmers should get 'a payable price for their produce, but he was opposed to a fictitious price. "There is no stability about this fluctuating makeshift," said Mr. Cobbe. Under the cover of a permanent effort to improve the circumstances of the farmer a deliberate attempt was being made to put socialism into operation, and he claimed that if that were so, then it should be done openly.

"Undemocratic ana Tyrannical."

Mr. W. P. Endean (National, Parnell), said it had been suggested that the guaranteed ' price would be 1/1 for butter. ■ In' 1931 butter had gone as low as 6d a pound. Then the Government had raised the rate of exchange, with the result that the price went to 8d The difference between 8d and the 1/1 which the Government proposed to pay was sd. If it were true that every Id per pound in New Zealand

meant a total of £1,750,000, the Dominion would be faced with nearly £8,000,000. It was quite possible that the price would descend to Cd again, and in that case the unfortunate taxpaver would have to meet the deficit. The Prime Minister (Mr. Savage): Meet what deficit?

Mr. Endean: The £8,000,000. Where is it coming from? Mr. Savage: The deficit is not there. You are imagining things. Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) : That is only a figure in a book. It will be cancelled out.

"This bill is undemocratic, overriding and tyrannical," said Mr. Endean, "and the Government is carrying on with it even though a majority of the people in this country is against it." Ruination of Industry. Mr. S. G. Smith (National, New Plymouth) said if the bill went through it might spell the ruination of the dairy industry. He understood that it was intended to reduce the number of agents handling produce in Britain. He held no brief for agents, but there were some who had been acting for the Taranaki dairy companies for many years, and they had always given them a fair deal. If produce was placed in the hands of a few agents all those who were eliminated would get supplies from somewhere else. "This ii , not the scheme that was put before the electors in my district," Mr. Smith continued. He said it was his opinion that the proposal that the Government should take the whole of the produce from farmers would be resented and would mean disaster to the farmers. The most dangerous portion of the bill was that which gave the Government power to take the- produce and pay what price it liked. "Governments Must Negotiate." Mr. C. E. Petric (Government, Hauraki), said orderly marketing, which would be secured as the result of the bill, was an essential for the future welfare of the dairy industry. Even such an authority as Mr. Goodfellow admitted that the conditions of marketing for the Dominion's dairy produce in England were chaotic. Mr. Coates, after his return from England last year, had stated definitely that as the result of economic developments trade would have to be negotiated between Governments before individuals could do business. That was exactly what Labour proposed to do.