MARKETING BILL

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 194, 14 May 1936, Page 10

MARKETING BILL

Second Reading Debate In Council FIRST NIGHT SITTING “No Mandate Given To Labour” Because the Legislative Council will be called upon to deal with a formidable body of legislation within the next few days, the Leader, Hon. M. Fagan, invited the members to dispose of tlie second reading of the Primary Products Marketing Bill at one sitting yesterday. At 5 p.m., the customary hour of adjournment for the day, tlie debate had not been completed and the sitting was resumed at 8 o’clock, thus giving the Council its first experience of night work this session.

Outlining the objects of the Bill, Mr. Fagan claimed that it was in line with the Government’s election policy. There was some difference of opinion whether it was actually embodied in the Labour Party’s election platform, and whether the Government had received a mandate to proceed with the legislation. But it was clear in his mind that the Government had such authority from the electors.

Mr. Fagan, referring to conditions on dairy farms and the extreme difficulty many farmers were facing in keeping going, said he knew of scores of instances where farmers had to leave their properties and go on public works in order to earn a little extra while their wives and children did the milking. It was only the sweating conditions that had obtained during the last three or four years that had enabled tlie industry to survive as long as it had done. Bill Attacked. The Hon. R. Masters (Taranaki) agreed that the question of guaranteed prices was put before the public at the election, but asked were the details of the Government’s intentions clearly explained. He proposed to try to prove that the farmers had never given the Labour Panty a mandate to proceed with legislation of such a kind. All that had been given to the electors was a medley of confused ideas, and he hoped to convince the Council of the grave dangers inherent in the measure. Mr. Masters reminded the Council that the Prime Minister had denounced the former Government’s high exchange policy, and had declared that the guaranteed price scheme would be an alternative to the pegged exchange and not an addition to it. It was made clear to the farmers that if guaranteed prices were brought into operation, the exchange would go. Realising this, the producers expected to pay 25 per cent, less for their imported requirements. Mr. Fagan: Where was that statement made? Mr. Masters: At Blenheim on October 4, last year. The Prime Minister had stated also, continued Mr. Masters, that any deficit would not be met out of taxation, On the other hand, the Minister of Finance had informed a Blenheim audience that any shortage in the dairy produce account would have to be met by the people in general. Mr. Savage had described the high exchange as a tragic method for aiding the farmer. Did he now intend to abolish the exchange premium? Mr. Nash, speaking at Dunedin, had stated that any surplus would go to the nation; he did not mention that the dairy industry would get it. Mistakes had been made in the past, such as the Dairy Board’s attempt at compulsory control and the standardisation of cheese. It was vitally necessary that no further mistakes should be made in the marketing of tlie nation’s dairy surplus. Mr. Masters proceeded to quote from election statements of various Labour members to show that none had the same explanation as to how any deficit was to be made up if receipts from the sale of the produce of Hie Dominion in Britain fell short of the aggregate paid out in the guaranteed price. Britain’s Attitude. What was likely to be the attitude; of Great Britain to the importation of subsidised produce from New Zealand? Mr. Masters asked. Tlie British Minister of Agriculture had made it plain that his policy was to raise the price of home-produced foodstuffs, and to see that England did not again come within three weeks of starvation in event of war as she did in the last conflictIf Mr. Nash believed he could conclude a bilateral trading agreement with Britain he was going to be up against a very serious proposition indeed. He (the speaker) knew the attitude of the National Farmers’ Union of the United Kingdom toward subsidised imports of produce. “If Mr. Nash had discussed theprospects of an agreement witli Great Britain before talking about guaranteed prices, and if, instead of first loading the gun and flying it at the heads of these men in Great Britain, he had completed such an agreement, we would have got on better than we are likely to do now,” said Mr. Masters. Mr. Masters challenged the Government’s claim thati It had a mandate either from the public or the dairyfarmers to introduce its present legislation. It was a travesty of democratic principles and a prostitution of the rights of the farmers that they were not to be permitted to deal with their own produce. "Therefore,” said Mr. Masters, “I think it only a fair thing that the Government should give them the opportunity for a plebiscite as Mr. Massey did in 1923. I make that appeal to the Government.” “What Really Matters.” Tlie lion. B. Martin (Auckland) said, it was contended that the rights of

the farmers were being taken away. He would answer tlie point by asking if it mattered who purchased their produce as long as they received adequate re numeration for their efforts. Tlie real question was whether the Bill was in the interests of the farmers and the people in general. Tlie Government would eventually abolish the high exchange, but it had to be done with great care. As to marketing, there was no suggestion of a bilateral agreement with Britain, and the marketing of the produce of the Dominion was not involved with the question of such an agreement. Speaking as a farmer, and making his first address since his appointment to the Council, the Hon. J. Cotter (Matamata) described the Bill as one of the most serious measures to appear in Parliament. He supported it as it promised to relieve the dairy-farmer of much of his financial problem. He urged that every avenue be explored of negotiating a trading agreement with Britain. The time was opportune for an Empire-wide marketing policy. “If the Bill Goes Wrong?” The lion. F. Waite (Otago) said the dairy-farmer thought a guaranteed minimum would be fixed. If lie knew it was to be “heads I win, tails you lose” lie would favour Hie Bill, but at present he was uncertain, if the Bill went wrong the farmers would blame tlie Government, and time would tel). The Hon. Sir James Allen (Otago) asked Mr. Eagan to state clearly the Government’s intention regarding the projected dairy produce account at tlie Reserve Bank out of which tlie guaranteed price would be paid. He had understood the leader of the council to say that no interest would be paid to the Reserve Bank by the Government on any overdraft lying in the dairy account. Parliament and tlie country should know what this meant. Most people anticipated a deficit in the account for the first year. Would that overdraft remain there without interest charges year in and year out? Did this mean that the country was entering on a period of inflation by the printing of Reserve Bank notes? It was ar. extremely dangerous policy. , The Hon. E. R. Davis (Auckland) said he could not align his conscience with the principles of the Bill. It marked the beginning of the socialisation of production, with which he was out of sympathy. He was opposed to the nationalisation of any industry which could stand on its own feet and advance by its own initiative. “I stand here as a confessed .Socialist,” declared the Hon. T. Bloodworth (Auckland), “and I wish I could agree with Mr. Davis. My opinion is that if this Bill is successful it will intensify individualism, and not real socialisation.” The Hon. R. McCallum (Marlborough) commended the Government on its efforts to aid the dairy-farm er. hut predicted financial difficulties for the Minister. Some definite steps should be taken to prevent the depreciation of the currency.

Support for the Bill was given by the Hon. D. Buddo (Christchurch), who praised the marketing intentions of tlie Government. “I fear that this Bill is a gamble witli the greatest asset the country possesses.” said tlie Hon. W. Perry (Wellington). "It seems that this measure attempts 'o tell the merchants of Tooley Street how they shall conduct their businesses and they may resent it.” lie added. “Tlie English farmer will regard tlie guaranteed price as an extra bounty on top of tlie exchange premium.’’ Speeches against tlie Bill were made by the Hon. J. Alexander (Auckland), the Hon. J. McLeod (Taranaki), and the Hon. H. A. Russell (Hawke’s Bay) Tlie Hou. C. J. Carrington (Auckland) supported it. After Mr. Fagan had replied, the second reading was agreed to on Hie voices at (>.20 a.m.. with a few dissentients. Tlie Council adjourned until 11 o'clock this morning, when the committee stage wiU be taken.