EXPORT MARKETING SURPLUSES

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 21, 19 October 1944, Page 6

EXPORT MARKETING SURPLUSES

Transfer To War Account CRITICISM AND DEFENCE The transfer of £368,000 of surpluses years was criticized by Oppos ton member 8 and defended by the Minister of Finance, Mr. .-Nash, when the Maiketing Division estimates were discussed by the House yesterday , nW , Pr v of the “This is just daylight robbery of inc farmers,” said Mr. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua), who added that the cost of maintaining the Export Div isi n v a borne by the farmers, who were levied on thete produce. The cost of market ng was not borne by the general public, vet when surpluses accumulated m the produceaccounts through the levies bemore than was requiied the excess was Taken by the Government and paid into the Wa? Expenses Accouu for the benefit of the public as a whole. The proper course was that it the levies Tere too high they should be reduced. Mr. Nash said the point ot importance in connexion with the meat account was thnt it was originally agieed industry that the levy should be* Per and was a fair charge. But as a surplus was shown it was later arranged wdth the industry that it be reduced to Se e State did P tlie C job of marketing much always be reimbursed ? asked the Min • ster' In the case of wool said MiNash no payment was made by the industry for the ma ’ rk ® tin /’ b ed Kingdom agreed to pay the cost or, ( Oppos ition, Stratford): Are you a profit out of the mar-. kC Tbe Minister: Yes, but Britain is very satisfied with the way we are doing the J °Mr Nash claimed that the State was faUl m ly H« it He did not think that the marketing dairy produce by the State vpfv much cheaper than peioie uw State took over. Wholesale distribution of butter in New Zealand by the S SW‘““ -VISA and probably three halfpence. But the was doing the job on the principle of co?t P Tas bTthe the t bTne r fit t of S the”community,At should ? the community that should benefit vvTen there were surpluses-such as were now being paid into the War Expenses Account. He knew of nothing fairer. Mr. Corbett (Opposition, Egmont) said th-ii whatever the Minister nad said the fact remained that £368,000 had been paid into the public funds at t’ l ® ®£ Dense of the farming community . He ask m that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Itoberts lay all the relative documents concerning the London produce and trade agreement on the table of the House. °Mr. Roberts: I will do that; as soon as the negotiations are complete, but as said the Government had adopted the Russian system of export I " ark ®^ D f" which produce was bought at a low price from the producers and sod at at higher price on the export market. The dittci once was used for the general revenues in the form of taxation of one; section of community for the benefit o aill.■ . trusted the system would not continue long in the Dominion. PnnterMr. Gerard (Opposition, Mid-Canter burv) said the former Minister ot Mai-1-etin" Mr Barclay, had told the elec-toraFcolle-e of the Meet Board that surpluses in the meat account were the producers money. Now the Minister n Finance had claimed that it was, the community’s money. Who was rijit. Air Shcat (Opposition, Batea) said that the dairy board had planned the more orderly marketing of d™? ® X but the State bad stepped in and taken possession. Had the board been allowed to proceed he was convinced that it would have made just as great a success - the State had done. The outbreak of .v at had removed any marketing I oble ns overseas, aud. the success °r otheiw sc of the Government handling of P l °T 1< -® could only be determined in normal times H,. questioned whether the Government marketing of. wool, for r lnstQn T ‘i®’ i be successful in peace-time. He object ed strongly to the Minister making ex travagent claims -about the results of State marketing policy.