A RARE EVENT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 86, 8 October 1930, Page 6

A RARE EVENT

ESTIMATES REDUCED

Members' protest

GOVERNMENT OUT-VOTED

The rare event of the Government being defeated on a Departmental vole on its Estimates occurred in the House of Representatives last night, the item of £390,000 for the Department of Agriculture being reduced by £5 as a protest against the curtailment of the amount of money placed at the disposal of the Department this year for administration and general purposes. "I question if auy vote on the Estimates has been cut down so extensively as Agriculture," said Mr. A. Hamilton (Reform, Wallace), "and that Nis not a very desirable thing in a country where agriculture is the main industry." The vote was a very nieagro one, and the position was made worse by a comparison with other Departments. The Prisons Department was increased by about £1000. Mines by £2400, Audit £1000, Printing £5000, Mental Hospitals £3000, Naval Defence £12,000, and ■ Marine'1 £46,000. In the face of ttfaf the Agriculture Department was'decreased by over £66,000. Mr. J. A." Nash (Keforni, Palmer-' ston): "Shocking!" "Wo have lost our sense of proportion in this country," Mr. Hamilton continued. "When one goes through the items one finds that every important item is cut down." He said that ho would move the reduction of the voto by £1 as a protest against the reduction of the vote. Mr. D. M'Dougall (United,.Mataura): "That will make it worse." Mr. Hamilton: "Yes, but that is the only- way I have of making a protest. I wish "to protest against; the reduction of £60,618 on the Estimates of last year." The''farmers' £1 was worth only 14s on the 1914 standard, and at a time when the farmers were needing help the Vote-was reduced. Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford): "Make it'£s." Mr. Hamilton: "I will make it £5." Mr. F. Waite (Reform, Olutha): "Is this an auction." LITTLE CONSIDERATION. Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour, Raglan) said that he would support the amendment. In view of the report of the Director-General of Agriculture, it was evident that the Government had given the Department little consideration when reducing the vote. The producers of the country were passing through trying circumstances. Butter had now fallen as low as 114s, and the dairy farmer was facing a most difficult season. Instead 'of; being' reduced, the voto should have-been increased. There was a need to-day .for the highest application of industry, 'research, and in-' struction—industry on the part of the producers and the Department as well. To-day there was a widespread feeling of insecurity among the farmers at the services being rendered by the ■Department. Diseases in stock were ,prevalent, and there was a' need for, more efficiency in tho working of the Department.' . . Mr. M'Dougall supported Mr. Hamilton 's remarks. Mr. Poison said he would support tho" amendment. At a time when tho Department needed assistance, a cut of £66,000 was too big a drop iri" comparison with other Departments. Tho item of £5 for the purchase of stud stock was a poor economy in a country which depended so largely on the* quality of its stock. The Department of Agriculture had no cause to be satisfied with what it had done in the matter of second growth. The experiments were pitiable, and no real attempt had been made to grapple with the problem. It was time a supreme effort was made ;by the Department on a national question to bring those lands back into production. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) pleaded for more consideration for the Angora wool industry. At present the regulations made it almost impossible, for' .the. industry to be developed. . \ ; THE RABBIT PEST. .- » . Mr. \V. E. Barnard' (Labour', Napier) said that the vote for Hie destruction of rabbits on native lands and Crown lands had been reduced, and he hoped that there would be ;no cheese-paring policy in dealing with the rabbit pest. Ho was at a loss to understand.-tho reduction of the-vote for the assistance of the tobacco, industry. ■■ ■ : ' Objection was raised by Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Reform,-Ittccarton) to the reduction in the vote for Lincoln College. , , ■ ... Mr. W. D. Lysnai- (Independent Reform, Gisborne) said:.that the farmers as well as all other classes were asking for reductions, and he did not think that the farmers / would complain as long as the essential services were, adequately provided for. Mr. J. A. Nash: "Don't. you think the cut is "too big?"?:-. ".<■■: -i '.'■ ■ Mr. Lysuar: "No; last.year, the Estimates were £70,000 underspent." He considered that there.was. no reason why the research work.at Lincoln Col: lege should be curtailed. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) also made a plea for the extension of research at Lincoln College. Now was. the time to intensify, research work in order to increase production. •.'"■.' ECONOMY CUTS. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. A. J. Murdoch) said the reduction in subsidies was : partly accounted for by the pork subsidy and the honey subsidy being cut out,- That accounted ■for £39,000. He wanted to know how •money'was to be got for the Estimates when it was not available.- The Estimates had had to be reduced, and though he did. not agree with, the cutting- of the Agricultural. Department vote, .unfortunately he was, not the only one who had had to consider the matter. He would be pleased to look into any complaints members might have whore it was considered improvements could be made. The cheese question was being looked into, and efforts were being made to. ensure a higher .standard of production. Mr. Poison could have-helped, to prevent tho cut ■in the vote if he had voted for increased taxation; instead of that, he had voted against ■ the Government's proposals. It was not fair to say the Department had objected to the encouragement of rabbit fur growing. The difficulty was that in some areas rabbit boards objected oven to tame rabbits. In regard to blackberry, he said that a bonus had been • instituted for the encouragement of research for ;i medium to effectively control the weed. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) said that one of the questions that the Department would have to look into immediately was the quality of cheese It had been expected that the pork bonus would be withdnnvji, but one of the objections that tho pig farmers raised was that they could not get-cheap feed. Another Horn that- had disappeared was the bce.keepinjc vote, and lie .wished to know what,, was bring done for the encouragement, of the industry.."" ' . ■ Mr. D. .Tones (Reform, Mid-Can I nrl«my) said Mint tlm plan o£ economy I carried out by the Government was I

wrong. For instance, in the Tourist Department, the advertising vote—the life blood of the Department—Mad been cut down by £13,000. In the Industries and Commerce Department the show vote had been eliminated, and it had not been possible to have a display in Wellington. Mr. J. O'Brien (Labour, West-land) deplored the reduction of the Department's portion on the freight rates on fertilisers. | Captain H. M. Kush worth (Country Party, Bay of Islands) said that all experimental and research work was being reduced. This meant that further expense would be placed on the shoulders of tire working farmers. The Government seemed to be oblivious of the fact that there had been a drop of i£S,OOO,OOO in the fanners' export.!'. It was enough 1o make angels weep. ! After further discussion, the amendment, was carried by 36 votes to 27, the division list being as follows:— For the Amendment (36): — Ansell Linklater Barnard M'Keen Bitcbencr Maemillan Burnett Martin Chapman Mason Dickie J. A. Nash. Endean AY. Nash Field Parry Fletcher Poison Hall Uu sh worth Hamilton Savage Heufire Stewart H. 'E. Holland Sykes Howard AVaite Jones AVilkinson Jordan "Williams Kyle Wright Langstons Young Against the Amendment (37): — Armstrong Macphcrson Black , Makitanara Broadfoot Mumis Clinkard Munro Cobbe Murdoch do la Porrelle Ngata. Donald .O'Brien Hawke . Smith Healy ■ .....'. Stallworthy Hogan Sullivan Lysnar Taverner M' Combs Veitch M'Donald AVard M'Dougall THE EFFECT ON THE FARMERS. Mr. D. Jones (Reform, Mid-Canter-bury) expressed the hope that tlie Government would take proper note of the adverse vote of the House. He viewed the serious position of the farmers, in view of the prevailing prices. It was going to be very difficnlt indeed fop: them, and many would have no chance of Bhowirig a profit for the year. The Government should throw into the departmental vote every shilling of the vote made last year, and possibly more. The Minister: "Where would . the honourable gentleman get;'l it'• from "" "If I was in the'position; to do so," Mr. Jones replied^ "I' would have no difficulty in .getting it. iAVherc is the farmer going to get the money?": Voices: "That's it.": ' ' Mr. Jones: "It is no joke for the farmers." He asked the f Minister to review the facts in connection with the vote, and see if money could not be voted to meet the difference between the vote for this j-ear and that of last year. _^^_______, :