FARMERS’ POOL ACCOUNTS

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25547, 15 July 1948, Page 6

FARMERS’ POOL ACCOUNTS

MR NASH REPLIES TO QUESTION

DISBURSEMENTS IN TIME OF DEPRESSION

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 14. A question asked by Mr W. H. Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui) on the position of the farmers’< stabilisation pool accounts was answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr W. Nash) in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr Gillespie had referred to a statement by Mr W. W. Mulholland suggesting difficulty in paying out the money to the farmers in the event of a depression. “It would be neither politically nor financially impossible to pay out to farmers the pool moneys referred to in the event of a depression,” said Mr Nash. “The whole purpose of building up these moneys has been to limit the internal repercussions of rising exgort prices during good times and to ave something set aside to support producers’ prices during bad times. “The fact that payments will be made to one section of the community, the farmers, does not mean that other sections of the community will be prejudiced. On the contrary, the maintenance of farm incomes will have beneficial effects generally. These farm incomes will in turn be spent and will help to maintain incomes in other sectors of the economy. Agreement To Be Kept “The fact that these moneys are at present invested makes no difference to the basic principle outlined. These funds will not be taken away from the farmers. They will be used in accordance with the agreement between the Government and the industries concerned. They will not be paid out to any other section of the community. The expressed undertaking of the Government is that the funds are being held solely for the benefit of the farming industries concerned. “Payments to farmers from these funds in a time of falling overseas prices will undoubtedly help to maintain farm incomes and thereby contribute to general stability. The Government is always ready to discuss the whole question with the appropriate farmers’ organisations. “Under the present arrangements it is the level fixed for the guaranteed price and other producers’ prices internally in comparison with prices received for export which determines whether any call on the accumulated funds is necessary. Primary producers at present have a full voice in negotiating both these price levels. “Regarding the suggestion to go further than this and to pay out in excess of the prices received by producers internally, a substantial part of the accumulated funds, the effect at the present time would only be to add to inflationary dangers, and at some later date to leave the farming industries without funds to cushion possible price recessions. This would be the very opposite effect of economic stability.”

PRICE OF WOOL COMMENT BY MR KIDD (P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 14. The wool-grower had had a raw deal under the appraisal system, where there had not been a big enough disparity between fine and coarse wools, said Mr D. C. Kidd (Opposition, Waits ki) in the House of Representatives this evening. Since the return to the auction system, the price of wool had shown an increase. Many people though wool prices were too high and that some high prices obtained for special lines applied to’ the whole of the clip, but he thought the return for last season’s clip would be an average of 24d per lb, said Mr Kidd. A drop of one penny a pound would mean a loss of more than ■ £|,ooo,000 to the wool-growers.

PARLIAMENTARY DAY

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, July 14., • Normally the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives begins brightly but fades wearily until it is finally dropped. This year the process h,as been reversed. The debate began with a series of dull speeches but has increased in interest. This evening the House heard the Minister of Defence (Mr F. Jones) make the most important speech of the session so far, in which he expressed the opinion that national service was necessary. It also heard a typically able speech by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr A. H. Nordmeyer) on complaints about shortages, with special reference to recent speeches by Mr W. Sullivan (Opposition. Bay of Plenty). Mr T. P. Paikea finished this evening a speech begun the previous night on Maori problems and was rewarded with a round of applause from the whole House. The Prime Minister was obviously pleased with Mr Paikea, and more pleased still with the tributes paid to the youngest Maori in the House by Opposition members. Other features of a lively day in the House were the introduction of the Tuberculosis Bill by the Minister of Health (Miss M. B. Howard), and a Shinping and’Seamen’s Bill. The afternoon was spent in discussing Ministers’ written answers to questions, in which the site of the School of Forestry figured largely. There was a long and at times acrimonious discussion on a point of order on which Opposition members obvious-, ly felt keenly. Mr Speaker (Mr R. McKeeri) has issued a circular to all members setting but conditions with which Questions should comoly. Opposition members, accepting the circular, claimed that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and that replies by Ministers should be similarlv treated. They cited replies by the Prime Minister (Mr P. Fraser) as examples of what they meant. The discussion was earnest, but fruitless Mr Speaker inevitably having the last word.