URGENCY TAKEN

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21775, 6 May 1936, Page 12

URGENCY TAKEN

Primary Products Bill

A SHARP VERBAL DUEL

PRIME MINISTER AND MR

COATES

{From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, May 5,

At the moment precedence is being given in the House of Representatives to the Primary Products Marketing Bill, the measure which will provide the machinery for the operation of the Government's guaranteed-price fcheme for dairy produce. The secend reading of the bill has been given urgency, and the Government seems intent on having it put through the House without undue delay. This desire for a quick passage led to a sharp verbal duel this afternoon between the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) and the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara), about the request of the Prime Minister for urgency. The incident arose shortly after the House sat in the afternoon. When the Prime Minister moved that urgency should be accorded the passing of the second reading of the bill, Mr Coates was on his feet immediately, asking why the Prime Minister wanted urgencv on the second reading of an important bill. Mr Savage: We do not want to stop at 10.30 p.m., but to go on until a reasonable time. We do not want the bill to be before the House for ever.

When Mr Coates rose to speak again on the subject, he was interrupted by Mr Savage, who claimed that he was not entitled to discuss the matter in any shape or form.

Three times Mr Coates attempted to speak, and just as often Mr Savage rose to points of order, protesting that the member for Kaipara was out of order.

At last Mr Coates found an opportunity. "I have no desire to discuss this matter," he said, "except to know to what hour the Prime Minister intends to work the House." Mr Savage: The House is to go past 10.30; that is all. The member has no right to adopt this af itude.

Motion for Urgency

Mr Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard) told Mr Coates that it was not in-order for him to speak any further on the subject, and after Mr Savage had again emphasised the importance of the legislation, and the desire for the earliest possible passage, the Opposition demanded a division on the motion for urgency. The motion was carried by 48 votes to 15. The prediction that in three years the electors of New Zealand would become political Oliver Twists and say, "If this is socialism, we want some more." was n;ade by Mr G. H. Ormond Wilson (Govt., Rangitikei). He said that the bill was some contribution toward a better distribution which was the major problem of the world at present. "The bill has been criticised on the grounds that it is socialistic," Mr Wilson said. "I should like to express thorough agreement with that. It is a socialistic measure. To my mind the best way of implementing our policy is by going further in the way of sQ£ialisni and I hope that some of the permissive oowers in the bill will be taken, because it is in the interests of the country that they should be taken. We do not stand as doctrinaire socialists, forcing socialism on to New Zealand. There are provisions which will enable the Government to take any steps which are necessary or desirable toward that end." The debate on the bill was continued by Mr Thorn (Govt., Thames), who contended that the Labour party had clearly stated to the electors its intention to make primary products the property of the Government under a guaranteed-price scheme.

Mr Thorn said that in the speech on the bill given by Mr Coates on Wednesday evening, it had been stated that it had never "been clearly laid down that primary produce would become the Government's property. Mr

Coates had also claimed that Labour had been given no mandate by the country to buy produce; but there the member had been wrong. The party had made the statement repeatedly, and in fact the member for Kaipara had spent money advertising the fact that Labour had made it. An advertisement published m the New Zealand Dairyman" for November had given extracts from the speeches of a number of Labour candidates. "I myself was includedl in that gallery of immortals," said Mr Thorn "I was quoted as saying definitely that primary produce would become the property of the Government, and at the tir\2 I was not speaking as an individual, nor as a candidate. I was speaking as then national secretary of the party, and giving a view which had been arrived at only after several conferences and consultations between the candidates about the scheme. It was wrong of the member for Kaipara to allege that we did not say that we would purchase the primary produce of the country, and that it would become the property of the Government. When the party said that it meant to pay a guaranteed price, surely that implied that we meant to buy the produce, and, surely, if we bought the produce, it would give the Government ownership of it. When the member for Kaipara said that we had not a mandate to do that, he took up a misleading attitude." Mr Thorn said that the member for Kaipara had also claimed that the Government had not been given a mandate to put into effect its policy for socialisation of means of production, distribution, and exchange; but if 40 daily newspapers of New Zealand for 20 years had been warning the people that socialism was the objective of the Labour party, and if, after that, the people gave the party governmental power, surely it could not be said that the Government had no mandate to act on its socialist convictions.

Mr Poison Attacks Bill

"This bill will have the effect of placing the farmer on the same level as the lowest-paid worker in the low-est-paid industry in New ' Zealand," said Mr W. J. Poison (Nat, Stratford). "It will also wreck our overseas market; but evidently that does not matter, as long as the Government is able to carry out its policy of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. The House and the country want to know why this policy was not clearly stated at the election, and why we were given, and are still being given, doses of soothing syrup by the Prime Minister, when the actual socialisation of production was the Government's intention all along."

"The statements made by the Labour party in its official plan at the election gave no authority, Mr Poison continued, for any suggestion that its intention was to socialise the products of the country. The party had got into office on a definite understanding that it would not do what it had now done.

"It is the greatest betrayal of the farmers that has occurred in any country," he added. Mr Poison said that Labour members had stated that the last Government had been hostile to the farmers, controlling the marketing of their own produce, but that Labour was in favour of their retaining control. Was that not entirely opposed to everything the Prime Minister had done since assuming office? The Prime Minister: No. The farmers are telegraphing their approval. Mr Poison: Individual farmers. . The Prime Minister: The Farmers' Union. Mr Poison: The members of the Farmers' Union never dreamt that the Government was going to socialise their produce. "The guaranteed price will be about Is 0 l-3d, if the figures which the Minister for Finance has given the dairy industry are accurate," Mr Polson said. "For the last 36 years, the average in this country has been Is lid. Even with our depreciated currency, I am hoping that the price will be higher than I have suggested; but if it is taken on an average for the last eight to 10 years it will be no better than the farmer is getting now, and there will be greater costs." Mr D. Barnes (Govt., Waitaki) held 'that the lack of stability had given virtual control of the land and of the farmer to mortgage financiers. All the legislation of the previous Government had had the effect of postponing the reckoning day, and no provision hc.d been made to prevent a repetition of the present chaotic conditions in the farming industries. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Nat., Oroua), following a line taken by several other Opposition speakers, sought for definite information about the actual price which will be fixed under the bill. Mr Cobbe claimed that the bill might prejudice the credit of the Dominion overseas.

"We all know that the present Government holds office chiefly because of the reckless oromises it made to the farmers, and particularly to the dairy farmers," Mr Cobbe said. "A considerable proportion of those dajry farmers were induced to vote lor Lrbpur because of the Labour promises that their conditions would bo improved considerablv It was definitely stated by the party that a guaranteed price would be paid based on the average price ruling over the last eight or 10 years. That promise is repeated in clause 19 of the bill; but the bill also states that the price shall from time to time be fixed by order-in-council. From that it is evident that the dairy farmer has to take, not a fixed price, but whatever price id decided on by the Government of the day. "My chief objection to the bill is that, under cover of apparent efforts to improve the conditions of the farmer, a deliberate attempt is being made to place the principle of socialism on the Statute Book of New Zealand," Mr Cobbe continued. "If social, ism is to come, let it be done openly." Mr Cobbe asked three questions of the Minister for Finance (the Hon. W. Nash). Supposing, he said, that the price realised for export produce was 25 per cent, below the guaranteed price, would the additional money be found by the issue of notes, or by some other means? Again, if this note issue had to be undertaken, would it later be written off, or would it be a debt owing by the farmers? Would the additional money paid out under the guarantee scheme add a single penny to the real wealth of the Dominion?

Another advocate of the theory that the present system had failed was Mr D. McDougall (Ind., Mataura), who said that a Government which did something to alleviate the plight of the people was preferable to one that "merely waited for the clouds to roll by."

An allegation that Mr Poison (Nat., Stratford), who had strenuously opposed the Primary Products Marketing Bill earlier m the debate, had not so long ago come to the Government asking for a guaranteed price of Is 4£d a pound for butter, was made by Mr J. A. Lee (Govt.. Grey Lynn), but at the earliest opportunity Mr Poison rose to claim that he had been misrepresented, and Mr Lee accepted the explanation of Mr Poison that he had not asked for a guaranteed price, but a compensatory price, and that the price asked was Is 4|d.

Live Stock Embargo

A suggestion that the maintenance by New Zealand of the embargo against the free entry into this country of live stock from Great Britain might be used to our disadvantage in future trade negotiations with Britain, was made by Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat., Riccarton). Mr Kyle said it was clear from a perusal of English agricultural journals and other publications that the English people took strong exception to New Zealand's attitude, and yet the Minister for Finance declared that he intended to make a contract with Great Britain. The Minister would endeavour to lead one to believe that the members of the Labour party were the only people who ever attempted to negotiate with Great Britain.

Every individual in New Zealand, said Mr Kyle, was dependent on what the Dominion received for its produce sold overseas. Only a very small proportion of the Dominion's primary pro-