DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 17, Issue 289, 23 August 1923, Page 7

DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

HEATED DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH INSINCERITY SPEAKER THREATENS MEMBER FOR STRATFORD PRIME MINISTER OFFERS A PLEBISCITE A heated debate in the House of Representatives attended the presentation yesterday afternoon of the report of the Committee on the Dairy Export Control Bill. Mr. R. Masters (Stratfdrd), in a lengthy speech, charged the Government with insincerity, and with forcing the, measure through 'the House at the closing stages of the session. There were some warm moments during the replies of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, and the Speaker threatened to take action against Mr. Masters if he persisted'in interjecting. The Prime Minister made an important announcement —that, subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture, who was in charge of the Bill, he was quite prepared, during the Committee stage, to have a clause serted providing that the Bill should not take effect until a plebiscite of dairy farmers was' taken. At the same time Mr. Massey said he was convinced they wanted the Bill.

MR. MASTERS’S CHARGES ATTACK ON DAIRY COMPANIES. In the House of Representatives resterday afternoon. Sir George Hunter, on behalf of the Select Comnaittee on the Dairy Export Control Bill, reported that it had heard evidence on the Bill, and recommended that it be allowed to proceed with the amendments made by the Committee, and that the evidence ba printed. I Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) said that the Government had showed that thev vere not sincere in their atttiude towards the Bill. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. W. Nosworthy): That is the limit. ' Mr. Masters: “The manner in which the Bill has been held up is the limit.” The evidence, he said had been ready eight days before, and members should have been given an opportunity of seeing it. He read the list of business on the Order Paper, and asked how could they be expected, no v that the Primo Minister was going, away early next week to the Imperial Conference, to deal with the Bill, as well as the re tnafrnng Bills, the Estimates of th® Public Works and <he Education Departments and the Supplementary Estimates. The Government were evidently resolved either to force the Bill through at the dying hours of the see aion, so that there could be no opposi tion, or to shelve it for the time being, in the hope that some members of their own party could oppose it, and have the blame laid on them. They were not, however, going 10 blame him. The Prime Miniter: Unless you de serve it.

“REVOLUTIONARY/ LEGISLATION”

Mr. Masters, continuing, said it was wrong in principle to introduce legislation of a revolutionary type, at this stage of the session. Parliament was not in a position to say that tho dairy farmers of the country wanted the Bill. He admitted that the Prime Minister was not making the Bill _ a partv question, and the Opposition would take up the same attitude. At the same time, the Government bad made political capital out of tho Bill, and said he had held it up. The Prime Minister: So vou did. Mr. Masters laid that tho Primo Minister must know that there was a 'great. deal of opposition to the Bill among dairy farmers, mainly on count of*tho compulsory clause. Without it, he believed, the Prime Minister would have no difficulty in getting the Bill through. There were men in the House who were advocating the Bill who were nothing more or less than professional chairmen. (Dissent.) The Prime Minister had always impressed the House that ho kept his word, and said, if the farmers airreed, he would introduce legislation. The secretary of the National Dairy Association had made the same statement, adding that she Bill would not be forced on the farmers. The member for Patea had laid: “Go into the thing whole-heart-.sll.v, or go out of it whole-heartedly.” Were the farmers of the Dominion ivhole-heartedlv in favour of the Bill ? Mr. J. R. Corrigan (Patea): Eeasily. (Laughter.) THE BILL IN TARANAKI Mr. Masters reviewed the deliberations of the original conference of dairy farmers held ’ n Wellington in regard to the matter. The Taranaki province was represented by six gentlemen at that conference. What was their position? Mr. Masters quoted leveral of them as supporting the Bill jvhile the suppliers of their factory sad opposed the Bill. The proposal i-ad been thoroughly thrashed out in 'Taranaki, yet there were 42 factories igainst it and 19 for it. Mr. Masters was here called to jrder for an exchange between him ind Mr. Corrigan. He said that very tew of tho delegates at the Wellington inference had carried out the resolution of the conference that they should get an expression of the views of their suppliers in regard to the proposal. In only one or two instances had it been carried out. Manv of them were afraid that the verdict of the suppliers wou’d go against them. The promoters of the original scheme were in South Taranaki. It was. instigated ot Knunokanui the best dairy factory in Taranaki, producing 2500 tons of •heeso. What was their position teiav? Mr. Corrigan: They were muzzled. Mr. Masters. It would be better if you were muzzled. _ The Speaker again called Mr. Masters to order.

FACTORIES THAT FAVOUR BILL

Mr, Masters said' that ths delegate Eltham was not game to go along

to his shaheholders and ask for their opinion on the scheme. Of the factories that originated the scheme, only one was now in support of it. The organiser (Mr. Brown) stated that of the factories in the Dominion 228 voted in favour of the Bill and 92 against. That meant that 61,760 tons of butter-fat wore in favour of the Bill and 20.083 tons against it; or 25 per cent, of the butter-fat produced in New Zealand was opposed to the Bill. The vote was only taken with regard to 323 factories, whereas there were 540 factories and 16 packing houses registered in New Zealand. There were 30 per cent, of the dairy factories against the Bill, and 26$ per cent, of the cheese factories against it, according to the figures presented by Mr. Brown. Even those figures were not reliable, inasmuch as they included factories in support of the Bill which were known to be against it. With regard to the position in the South Island, there were 89 facories in favour of the Bill and 38 against it. Thirty-eight factories were not represented. The vote was taken of the factories, according to the amount they paid the South Island Dairy Association, which had to admit that the vote was no indication of the support or opposition to the Bill. Was it right and just that legislation of a kind that had not before been heard of in the world should be forced on the fanners? Even the Government supporters were divided in their opinions. He was prepared to admit that there was justification for the Meat Export Control . Act, which was passed because that industry was down to such a state that would warrant anything being done to help it. But was this the case with the dairying industry ? The Minister of Education (Hon. O. J: Parr): It is run by a combine. Mr. Masters: I will take the combine. Butter-fat was selling in 1914 at Is osd. per lb.; to-day it in Is, lOd. The member for Patea shakes his head, but I know some factories that paid Is. lOd. in his district not 20 miles from his own factory, where they only pay Is. Bd. The export industry has grown from £5,000,000 to £17,000,000. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE “MOST UNFAIR ATTACK I HAVE HEARD.” The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. W. Nosworthy) said he had any amount of evidence in favour of the Bill, and he believed that the evidence was absolutely correct. He did not, he said, intend to occupy the time of the House, or to prevent the report being laid on the table of the House, to enable the evidence to bo circulated. The member for Stratford had endeavoured to cover up the position by—l nay what I mean —the dirtiest attack I have ever heard in 15 years’ experience in Parliament. The Leader or the Opposition rose to a point of order, and asked that the Minister be directed to withdraw the remark. Mr. Nosworthy: I have much pleasure in withdrawing it. (Laughter.’ It was one of the most- unfair attacks I have ever heard in this or any other Parliament. The member for Stratford accused the Government of trying to side-track the Bill—- — Masters: Or force it through. THE GOVERNMENT’S ACTION

The Minister: “Those statements are absolutely incorrect. The Government spent no time last session in setting up a special committee. The Government have kept their promise, and the Bill is now before the House. We decided to refer it to the Agricultural and Pastoral Committee, for evidence to be taken. There were so many that desired to give evidence that it was decided to defer it for some days longer, and give an equal and full opportunity to everyone to put their case before the committee. I deny the truth of the statement of the hop. member that the evidence has been in print for a fortnight. The Bill and the evidence have been brought down in accordance with the trad tions of the House, that they should appear together. Every effort was made by the Government to give everybody a fair run. The Government has been wrongly accused of a sinister purpose. Mr. Nosworthy appealed to the reason of the Leader of the Opposition as to the arrangements for bringing down the Bill. He had consulted him about it, and he told him be proposed to bring nt down to-day, as some of the members of the Opposition had been away from the House before. When he had so consulted their wishes, all he got in return was this accusation.

The Prime Minister: What else can you expect? Mr. Nosworthy It is the most unjustified attack I have heard made against any Government. I am quite content to leave the case for the Government in the hands of the people. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui): Hear, hear. Mr. Masters: Will you take a vote? APPEAL TO ELECTORS Mr. Nosworthy: I will tell you later. Before very long, tho people may have an opportunity of saying what they think of the Government. We are in a position to face the country, and say we have done everything to help the primary producers during tho most extraordinary period the country has ever been through. The member for Stratford had given his position away when he admitted that the Meat Export Board was a good thing. Mr. Masters: I did not say that. At this stage, the Speaker advised the member for Stratford that he had already warned him several times. DAIRY AND MEAT EXPORT The Minister: It was under extraordinary circumstances that the Bill was brought in. To-day wo are happy to acknowledge that the conditions in the dairy industry are a great deal better than for some considerable time, and better than tho meat industry was when the Meat Export Control Act was passed. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Had the Bill been introduced before, it might have been disastrous to the industry. A great number of influenties had been brought to bear on Parliament in connection with the fight over the Bill. I am prepared to stake my reputation on it. In 1897, there were 57 proprietary factories; in 1903, 47; in 1913, 29; and in 1923. only 11—all proprietary interests that fought against the co-operative element of the country, and the fight that they have been putting up, through propaganda, through the Press, and through their own interests has justified . that the dairy farmers should organise in regard to their own industry, v The Biff means national co-operation; it does not mean a trust or combine in any sense. If they were to be denied the right of organising for their own protection. for the supervision of their shipping and the sale of their products, those opposed to them would have a very hard case under a democratic system of government. “1 repeat, it was an unfair attack on the Government. The Prime Minister is due to go to the greatest Imperial conference yet held. He had a large number of financial Bills to present to Parliament, and he had so to arrange the Order Paper to make it absolutely necessary to get legislation such as the reduction of taxation through. We had no control over the circumstances under which the presen. tation of this Bill has been held back. I have no personal interest in the matter • I am prepared to sit here ter two’ or three months, and I am satisfied the farmers will be behind me. (Hear, hear.) KNOWLEDGE IS ARGUMENT Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui), in supporting Mr. Masters, said .hat knowledge was argument. . Tho Primo Minister: Hear. hear. (Laughter.) ~ ~ r. i The Government, said Mr. Forbes, was forcing control on tho fanners, so that they would take control of their own industry. He hoped the Prime Minister would take up the matter of freights with the man ir, charo-e of the shipping combine—Lord “Somebody.” (Laughter.) PRIME MINISTER’S OFFER PLEBISCITE OF DAIRY FARMERS. The Prime Minister expressed surprise at the violence of the speech the House had heard from Mr. Masters. The real difficulty of getting the evidence was that it was delayed in the Printing Office. . . Mr. Masters again interjected, and the Speaker indicated that he was very loth to take final action. Ho hoped Mr. Masters would ■ take notice of bis warning . The Prime Minister said that dairy farmers knew the Bill from A to Z, and what they desired was <hat it should get on the Statute Book this session. .It could easily bo put through all its stages in a day—one day the House had disposed of seven Bills. A! member: Would you favour a plebiscite of farmers? Mr. Massey: What is a plebiscite but a vote? Every question, whether it is at suppliers’ meetings cr in this House, can only be decided on a vote, and all I want is that members will remember the time, and not talk tho report out. 1 want the Bill to go to a vote and have a decision on it. If tho decision is unfavourable 1 shall have been quite satisfied. ’ “I have no objection,” said Mr. Massey, “to the principle of compulsion being decided by a majority of tho dairy far- ' mers themselves.” Mr. F. Langstone (Waimarino) urged that the evidence be circulated amongst members as soon as possible. REFORM “SOCIALISM” Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that unless the compulsory clauses wore withdrawn the Bill would pot pass. His friends on the left would vote solidly for the Bill. His own vote was'certain. So long as tho Opposition owed its balance to the support of the extreme Labour vote, he would stand by the Government. Fortunately the Prime Minister had not made the mea sure a party question. He believed the principle of the Bill was most pernicious. - I'ho Reform Party not only objected to Government control, but even State management, yet by supporting the Bill hon. members would support the very principles of Socialism, at a cost they did not realise. “Am 1 speaking logic?” asked Mr. Isitt. General chorus: No. The attitude of tho Government was that a two-tnirds majority had the right to seize on tho products of tho remainder, enforcing principles which they had condemned with bell, book, and candle.

LABOUR NON-COMMITTAL

Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) said that the last speaker had out-Toried the Tories. He could not follow his logic. Tho Labour Party would make known its attitude when the Bill came before tho House. Ho hoped the report would go through, and that the Bill would be dealt with carefully in detail, especially in view of the different vrews in the House. If the working fanners accepted the principle of the Bill, tho House need not object to it. It had been said that if the proposal hnd been brought in by the Labour Party it would have been called Bolshevism. It was nothing of the sort, being merely a temporary expedient ,but none the less an indication that the socialisation of all industry was inevitable. TARANAKI SUPPLIERS ANTAGONISTIC

Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) said that the Prime Minister had made a' promise that the Bill would not become law until it had been referred to a pleb : scite of the farmers. The member for Stratford had said nothing to justify the attack of the Minister of Agriculture, whose attitude at tho

Dairy Conference bad lost the Reform Party many supporters. The Minister had' misrepresented Mr. Masters in regard to the Meat Board. Had the Moat Board done so very much? What was needed was a change to a Government that would do the things • 10 people wanted them to do. _ The opinions of the producers in his own district, who had had the fullest opportunity of hearing discussions, were unanimously against the Bill. He suggested that if the evidence had been printed last year and circulated members could have discussed it, but he was of the opinion that the more information supplied, the less the ; B, 11 would be wanted.. Ho gave instances of suppliers’ meetings that had unanimously turned tho Bill down. The propaganda of the Bill had been restricted to newspaper reports and speeches by supporters. Perhaps it suited the Tory Party to tell tho people how to vote. People would not consent to the building up of only three ports in the Dominion under the pretence that it would facilitate shipping It had been admitted that all be wanted was an option-an oprion that would secure control of £Ib,WU,000 worth of produce. WAIKATO DAIRYMEN’S SUPPORT Mr. J. A. Young (Hamilton) said that the opposition to the project was chiefly by purchasers of butter here and by another section at Home. The New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company at a meeting of 300 shareho tiers,’ representing 8000 dairy farmers in South Auckland province, bad passed a resolution unanimously urging the House to place the Bill on tho Statute Book in its present form. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said that the proposal was not Socialism, but more like Syndicalism. But even then the suppliers concerned should be consulted. He doubted whether ■ the people of New Zealand 1 as a whole were not also concerned to the extent that would entitle them to a referendum. The Hon. A. T. Ngata (Eastern Maori), while welcoming control, was opposed to the suggestion of a plebiscite tho decisions of which would become compulsory.

ECONOMIC GROUP INTERESTS

The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said that the interests of the public as a whole had to be considered in talkinc of a plebiscite of suppliers. If the principle of economic groups were accepted, where was the principle to ell At 5.28 the chairman of the Industries and Stock Committee reserved his right to reply/to avoid talking out the report, and it was tabled. COMMITTEE’S AMENDMENTS

The committee recommended, the Bill be allowed to proceed with the amendments made by them. The first amendment is one providing that tho producers’ representatives should be elected by direct vote of the producers. Clause 2, which provides that export may be prohibited bv bhe board or tho Minister, has been alterted to read, “by the Minister, subject, to conditions approved by the board. Tn clause 12, which provides that the board may assume control of dairy produce intended for export, subclause 8 has been amended to read: “Tbe board shall not exercise its powers under this section with respect to thia sale of any dairy produce, so as prejudicially to affect the operation or any contract of agency in respect of tho sale of dairy produce out of New Zealand if such contract has been entered into in writing on or before the first day of October, 1922.” <ffite previously mentioned was July, 1923. Section 16 has been amended to read: “All moneys received by the board by way of levy under section 14 or in respect of . the sale or dairy produce or otherwise, shall He paid by the board into a separate account at a hank.” The words “by wav of levy” have been added. The only other, amendment mndte bv tho committee is in regard to the navnienfq into tho reserve fund. The'now nro’-ision is that the amounts shall not exceed in anv venr the maximum amount levied for that venr under section 14. which provides for the levy on dairy produce exported