MILK BILL

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 22, 20 October 1944, Page 6

MILK BILL

Second Reading Completed OPPOSITION DECLINES TO SPEAK The debate on the Milk Bin was continued in the House last night, but with the Opposition declining to participate it was left for Government members to sustain the discussion. It was debated for about three hours and the only Opposition speaker was Mr. Holyoake (Pahiatua) who reiterated the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, the previous night that the debate should be deferred till Hie special select committee had reported on it. Mr. Chapman (Government, wellwgton North) outlined the history of the Wellington municipal milk undertaking from its inception 25 years ago. A deplorable state of affairs had been disclosed in' the supply and. quality of milk before the Wellington City Council took over. Today the milk supplied by the council was of a very high standard and the citziens of Wellington were .very appreciative indeed. They now enjoyed tne best milk supply of any in the country and were astounded that other 1 communities had not followed their example byestablishing municipal milk, depots. It, as the Leader of the Opposition had suggested, a plebiscite of Wellington people were taken on the issue whether the old system should be restored there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of tne municipal scheme. The city council supplied three-quarters of the milk sold to Wellington consumers, and it was all pasteurised. During the winter months nearby farmers frequently had difficulty in obtaining sufficient milk to supply their customers and they bought thousands of gallons from the city council. The result was that the customers of the nearby farmers often congratulated them on the better milk they supplied during the winter. (Laughter.) The council milk had to pass rigid tests, and any not up to the high standard demanded was at once rejected. He suggested that members of Parliament visit the Wellington milk depot to see for themselves. Assistance to Producer. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Roberts, said the Bill would give the. producers the advantage of expert advice. Ihe whole problem of a safe and adequate milk supply would be solved if every part of the Dominion was using the Wellington system according to the needs of the particular locality. The Bill’s primary concern was with the consumer, but it did also extend a wonderful measure of assistance to the. unorganized producer. It gave him certain powers of control in his own local organization, but he would also have the help of the Marketing. Department in achieving stable conditions. The main purpose of the Bill was to see that an adequate supply obtained over 365 days of the year. The first who usually suffered when supplies were short were the school children. ' The national price structure for town milk was based on the guaranteed price formulae with amendments recommended by the Milk Commission. The opinion that it was simply a. waste of time discussing the Bill when it was to be referred to a special committee was expressed by Mr. Holyoake (Opposition, Pahiatua). The Bill, he said, should have been read a second time pro forma and sent to the committee as had been done with four out of five other Bills introduced that afternoon. Even at that stage the second reading debate should be terminated and then resumed when the Bill came back from the committee. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, said it’was not right for such a Bill to go to a committee without the House and the country knowing what members thought.of the Bill. The House was considering one of the major ways of promoting the health of the community and how to get milk to the people at the least possible cost and to ensure that the. production of the commodity and its distribution was efficient. Freedom of Choice. Considerable .misrepresentation, was being used to damage the Bill,, said Mr. Richards (Government, Roskill). He quoted from a circular issued in the South Island stating that the Bill would deny the people the freedom to choose either raw or pasteurized milk. That was an incorrect statement, as the Bill left the householders with the option of taking either sort of milk. The Bill also offered the producers of town milk a greater security. It was remarkable that under the existing system of town supply the producers who had to buy land, herds and plant received less for their milk than the vendors who distributeirit. The producer-vendor would still be allowed to sell milk under this Bill, but the difference the Bill would make would be that in purity and quality the milk he sold would be better than It had been under the present system. There had been impovements to the milk supply in Auckland since the Milk Council took control, said Mr. Richards. At the time the Auckland empowering Bill was before the House the same degree of opposition was offered as was now being put forward to this Bill. All sorts of disasters and tragedies were predicted. but the reverse had been the case. The move for a better milk supply was in keeping with what had been done in tlie past regarding the wrapping of meat. Mr. Richards said he hoped that soon after the war it would also be compulsory for bakers to wrap all bread lor delivery. He quoted from a report from Great Britain which stated that of subsidies of £28,000,000 paid by the British Government in a year no less than £11,000,000 represented payments to dairy-farmers as a guarantee for their pool price for milk. , . n Mr. Carr (Government, Timaru) said some people preferred home brew and others pasteurized beer, which wag what the breweries sold.'. Sonic people preferred pasteurized milk and others their milk raw and with a tang of the cowyard. (Laughter.) But he wished to make a plea for a better understanding of pasteurized milk. If the debate helped to convince the public of the value of pasteurized milk as a commodity free of the bacilli of tuberculosis and other diseases it would prove worth while. Tlie Bill looked after the interests of 650,006 people who did not have a vote — the children of the Dominion, said Mr. Combs (Government, Wellington Suburbs). The rising generation would be a healthier one because of it than the generation they succeeded. The Bill was vital to the children and therefore to every- mother in the country. The Opposition should declare where it stood. Mr. Combs said that before the Wellington City Council took oyer control of the milk supply, the Wellington consumers were getting impure milk and less than the quantity they thought they were buying. Now, under the council’s scheme they received exactly the quantity they paid for. and a pure supply at that.’ As a beneficiary of Ihe Wellington scheme he wisli.ed to bear testimony to I he way the council managed its undertaking. It was a pity that the council had not bought out all the milk vendors when it embarked on its scheme. American servicemen had paid a glowing tribute to the quality of Wellington’s milk, said Mr. Combs, fine night when he was going home late from the House lie saw between 25 and 30 Americans waiting for a Wellington milk delivery cart to pull up. They each bought a bottle and declared that the contents, by American standards, were not milk, but. cream. Regret that the Opposition had not seen lit to express its mind on the Bill was expressed by the Minister of Health, Mr. Nordmeyer, in replying to the debate. He .said it was only a technical

Bill that was referred to. some special committee before it was discussed. Ihe normal course provided for iu the btamiiug Orders had been adopted with the Milk Bill. No one could suggest that the Bill would differ materially from what" it was at present when it came back from the committee. Even though the members of the .Opposition had refrained from discussing the Bill on the second reading he hoped they would take the opportunity of doing so when the Bui came back from the committee. . The Bill was then read a second time and referred to the special select committee.