DAIRY INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 33, 2 November 1934, Page 12

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Co-ordination of Work of Boards MEETING A QUOTA Control of Production and Marketing The necessity for an organisation to co-ordinate the activities of the various produce boards was emphasised by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, when speaking in the House of Representatives last evening in support of the proposal in the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill for the establishment of an Executive Commission of Agriculture. Mr. Forbes said the regulation of the United Kingdom market was facing New Zealand, and it was absolutely essential to have in this country some organisation that would be in a position to deal with production and marketing in an orderly fashion. , A good deal of the criticism of the Bill 'said Mr. Forbes, was due to a misunderstanding of what was proposed. The Dairy Commission had examined the problem of the dairying industry in a most exhaustive way and had produced a very valuable report. There was no dispute about that. Last March the Government had called a conference of leading men in the industry. It had placed before the conference certain cables in connection With the request of Great Britain that New Zealand should agree to quantitative restriction. After various phases of the problem had been discussed the Government had been asked to appoint a commission, and this had subsequently been done. Burden of Subsidies. The only suggestion the Dairy Board was able to make for relieving the dairy-farmer was to give him a subsidy out of the Consolidated Fund. If that course were agreed to it would mean the Government would have to ask < the taxpayers to put their hands in their pockets. One would have thought the first thing the board would have considered was how' the marketing of dairy produce could be improved. It was not possible for a country to keep on pro-, vidifig large sums by way of subsidies Already a good deal had been done to assist the farmer. The exchange had been increased and the Mortgagors Relief Act Passed K 0 a farmer could take his ca«e before an adjustment commission. Under this Act there was no chance of a farmer being put off his farm. Reference was made by the Prime Minister to the recommendation of the Dairy Commission advocating the establishment of a Rural Mortgage Corporation so that interest rates might be reduced; Mr. Forbes said a project of that nature required a good deal of thought and investigation, and it was not possible to bring, in legislation giving effect to that proposal at the present time. The preparatory work, however, was well in hand, and legislation would be available when the House met again early in the new year.; 1 Production and Marketing. ’ The establishment of a board to co-ordinate the work of the existing boards was a part of the machinery necessary to deal with our production and marketing. The-commission had made a strong feature of that in its report. The ■ recommendation of a body of capable men like those who were 1 members of the commission could not be set aside lightly. A deputation that had waited upon the Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, and himself, had urged that action should be delayed.. .In reply to this he had pointed out that the criticism against the Government was that it failed to act soon enough. Those who criticised the proposal had visions of an organisation that would be a sort of Mussolini. Nothing of the sort was intended. . The Commission 'of Agriculture would investigate the'possibility of opening up new markets and coordinate the work of the boards, with which it would work in the closest cooperation: The commission could only act in accordance with the powers given it by the Government. In Great Britain there was organised marketing. With the . control and regulation of marketing in Great Britain there would be forced upon New Zealand the necessity for having some organisation capable of handling the situation at this end. Within their limits the boards had done very good work. Lack of Organisation. Mr. Forbes referred to lack of organisation in the marketing in Great Britain of New Zealand’s dairy produce. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) : What is your High Commissioner doing? Mr. Forbes: He is not in a position to arrange trade matters. Mr. Armstrong: Well, give him the necessary power. Mr. Forbes said it was necessary to have someone continually on the job and that the Dominion must, have a permanent trade representative at Home. First of all, however, there must be some central co-ordinating .control in this country, and the Government, with this end in view, had brought down a Bill in a genuine attempt to improve the position. The Government was only doing something that had been done in other countries to a far greater extent. Boards were being established in Great Britain with much fuller powers than was contemplated here. Quality of Butter. Referring to the quality of New Zealand produce, the Prime Minister said that our butter compared more than favourably with that of almost any other country. However, there was a great discrepancy between the butter consumed in the Dominion and that sold on the Home market. Mr. C. E. Wilkinson (Ind., Egraont): What has the board been doing? Mr. Forbes: .Many British grocers are asked to sell New Zealand butter which is stale after being in store for many months. I have seen boxes of New Zealand butter opened in England which, to the average customer, is obviously stale and discoloured. Such things as this require a great deal more attention at the other end, where there is not half the care, publicity and supervision that are necessary. Mr. D. McDougall (Ind., Mataura): What about cheese? Mr. Forbes: Our cheese is largely in the same condition. Mr. McDougall: Then how did Southland win the prize six times out of eight? Mr. Forbes said that there was still considerable improvement required in the marketing of New Zealand cheese.

He closed by referring to the Bill itself and said that the measure was essential. It was said that such legislation was socialistic and destructive, but those who said this did not look at the whole question, and certainly did not realise what was happening to the marketing of our produce. Mr. J. Hargest (Govt., Invercargill) said he failed to see why the country should be so perturbed at the Bill, most of the objections to which, he believed, had been inspired. To guarantee prices far in excess of world parity would result in an increase in the glut of produce overseas. Prices must be stabilised at world parity, otherwise there would be nothing but unending chaos. After a study of present methods of marketing New Zealand produce, he believed the only solution of the difficulty was to be found in a coordinating board. Immediate relief was the most urgent need of the dairy-far-mer, but it was extremely difficult to give him immediate relief without setting some machinery in motion. The Bill was a step in that direction. Mr. C. 11. Clinkard (Govt., Rotorua) said the Government had been doing its best to keep export producers in operation. For one country to lessen production without reduction by other countries would be suicidal. New Zealand must keep up production and control marketing. He considered the supreme couucil should not be divorced from governmental control, and a Minister should be a member of it. Otdiesrs in Difficulties, Tao,. Mr. A. Stuart (Govt., Rangitikei) said that there were many other people in financial difficulties. Many business people in the cities were just as much up against it as the dairy-far-mer. The position of all sections of the community had to be considered. He criticised the proposal to set up a supreme council, and said he would be sorry to see so much power vested iu the hands of any three men. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Govt., Wai-, t.oino) • said the Bill proposed to give extremely wide powers to a race of supermen, and he did not see supermen in New Zealand. “We are giving Mussolini powers to men without the Mussolini capacity,” he said. “I don’t think British people will ever submit to tactics of that nature. I agree with several of the speakers that it is dangerous to confer such wide powers upon three unknown men. I think the supreme power should be in ®this House, and I think we might very well emulate the Australian method of appointing three Ministers to be the co-ordinating factors. They could act just as quickly as a co-ordination board, and they would be answerable to Parliament for their actions. If their work did not give satisfaction the remedy would be clear.”

How Members Voted. A division was taken on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Jlr. M. J.'Savage, to refuse the Bill a second reading on the ground that it failed to make provision for immediate financial assistance. The voting was as follows:— Against the For the amendamendment (37). ment (29). Ansell Armstrong Bitchener Atmore Broadfoot Barnard Burnett Carr Campbell Chapman Clinkard Coleman Coates, ’ Fraser Cobbe 1 Jones . Dickie Jordan ' Field Langstone Forbes Lee Hamilton McCombs Hargest , McDougall Harris McKeen Hawke ' Mason Healy Munro Henare O’Brien Holland Parry Holyoake Polson .lull Richards Kyle Samuel McLeod ■ Savage McSkimming Semple Macmillan Stallworthy Macpherson Tirikatene J. N. Massey Veitch W. W.j Massey "Webb Murdoch Wilkinson J. A. Nash Wright Ngata Reid Smith Stewart ■ ~ Stuart Sykes Te Tomo Young

Pairs :—Against the amendment: Connolly, Ransom, Bodkin, Endean, Linklater. For the amendment: W. Nash, Howard, Schramm, Sullivan, Rushworth.

Continuing the debate, Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) z said that a commission was not needed to tell the country that 50 per cent, of the dairy-farmers could not meet their commitments. The Labour Party .for years had been showing the Government where the country was heading. He asked whether the Government was’sincere in the statement that the powers contained in the Bill were latent. . Why in that case did they want the Bill? Waving the Wand. Mr. J. .A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) sai l the Prime Minister was to be complimented on not bouncing the ball in his usual “take-it-or-leave-it” style. If anything was to be done for the industry it must be done by Parliament itself and not by delegating powers to a board which might subsequently become the excuse for doing nothing. “Who are these supermen?” asked Mr. Lee. “Nobody, surely, would suggest that Judge Frazer—and I have nothing against him; I think he is an ordinary capable gentleman according to his lights—but nobody would suggest he is a superman. Who are these supermen? Stronach Paterson? Davey Jones? Who would suggest that any of these gentlemen are going to wave the wand?” Responsibility for Action.

Mr. J. A. Nash (Govt., Palmerston) said that in the face of the commission’s report Parliament could not refuse to act. The alternative to the Bill was to leave things as they were. The responsibility to decide rested upon the House. There was nothing in the Bill to lessen or injure the rights of future Parliaments. The suggestion to pay the farmer a subsidy and recover it when prices rose was unthinkable. “What we want,” said Mr. Nash, “is better quality and improved marketing conditions.” He thought the objections to the supreme council, might melt away if provision was made for a Minister of the Crown to act as chairman. It was his opinion that the Bill should be passed in its present form. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) : What will it do? Mr, Nash: It is designed to. deal with marketing and production, and in that order. The whole problem itself is one of marketing. “Pure Socialism.” Mr. R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs) said that the whole problem was to find new markets. No evidence had been forthcoming to prove that It was not intended to set up a dictator ship. The’ proposal to appoint a supreme council was pure unadulteiated, unmitigated socialism. Mr. Fraser: Didn’t the hon. gentle--

man believe in socialism at one time? Mr. Wright: When I was silly I believed in socialism. (Laughter.) I was a silly boy, but when I- became a man I left socialism behind and acted like a man. Mr. Fraser: When will you grow up? (Laughter.) Mr. Wright: I grew up when the bonurable gentleman was at the business end of a feeding-bottle. (Renewed laughter.) Continuing. Mr. Wright said he believed the Labour Party was chuckling over the Bill, which represented the first stage in the control of the means of production. The wedge had been driven more than half home, and if the Opposition got the opportunity they would drive it right home In trying to save the dairy-farmer we don’t want to drown everybody elsebecause there would be nobody left to eat his butter,” said Mr. Wright. (Debate proceeding.)