“FARMERS’ DAY” IN THE HOUSE

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24624, 21 July 1945, Page 6

“FARMERS’ DAY” IN THE HOUSE

UNCIO DEBATE TO OPEN ON TUESDAY (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 20. To-day was a farmers’ day in the House of Representatives. The House spent all the morning discussing the report of the Marketing Department which the Opposition used as a basis for the charge that primary producers, far from being subsidised by the community generally, were subsidising the whole community. Then, before the House met in the afternoon, a large deputation of farmers and their wives waited on the Acting-Prime Minister (the Hon. W. Nash). The afternoon was spent on the second reading depate of the Finance Bill, which was unfinished when the House adjourned till Monday afternoon. Mr Nash said that the Finance BUI discussion would be resumed on Monday evening, and that the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) would open the UNCIO debate on Tuesday by moving a resolution of ratification. Thg main points in the Opposition's argument this morning were that when the stabilisation agreement was made by the farmers, they were led to believe that no large lump sums were to be received, and that last year’s agree-? ment, under which they consented to the payment of £400,000 to prevent a rise in local meat prices, was made “under duress.” Mr Nash denied that this was not made freely and happily. In reply to Mr Nash, Mr W. A, Sheat (Opposition, Patea) quoted the Prime Minister’s letter to the Farmers’ Federation. He said that this showed that the farmers were told they could not get a half-penny of the, increase of 2d paid by the British Government unless they agreed to subsidise the local market by £400,000. which, they were told, was an essential condition of the new price schedule. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. B. Roberts), dealing with the intention of the Government about lump sum payments, said that members should realise the essential feature of the guaranteed price, which was that as the dairy farmers were subject to the New Zealand level of costs, their price was on the New Zealand level. Opposition members declared that the farmers were prepared to make sacrifices to support stabilisation, but did not think they were being treated equitably.