DAIRY INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 106, 1 November 1934, Page 14

DAIRY INDUSTRY

PARLIAMENT'S DUTY

AS MR. COATES SEES IT

BRITISH POLICY

The alternatives of definite Government action or a policy of laissezfaire were placed before the House of Representatives last night by the Minister of Finance (the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates), during the course of his speech on the second reading of the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill. Mr. Coates defended the Government's action in bringing in the Bill on the ground that it was the duty-of Parliament to do all it could within its powers to alleviate the plight of the dairy industry.

Mr; Coates said that the report of the Dairy Commission had been received with acclamation from one end of the country to the other, and there was no doubt that it was a valuable document, but when the Government introduced a Bill based on the report, with certain modifications, tflero was a great deal of criticism. It was all a question whether they were to have a policy of laissez-faire—do nothing—or whether Parliament was to take definite action and creato an organisation which would meet the circumstances existing overseas.' The Press had stated that Parliament should not disband until the problem of the dairy industry was dealt with, but when Parliament had decided what action to take the story was a different one. The Government had no intention of rushing legislation through the House, but it had to be remembered that the industry was facing a crisis, and it rested,with Parliament to deal with it as it thought best. "SAME OLD BOGY." When the control board legislation was passed exactly the same humbug was talked from one end of the country to the other. It was stated that it was Socialistic legislation that would be dangerous in the hands of a Labour Government, and the same old bogy was being raised again. Conditions were ruling" today that had never been present before, and the welfare of the dairy farmer affected the welfare of every other section of the community. The fall in the price of dairy products had hit the Dominion much more severely than any. other country exporting milk products. The following figures showed the dairy exports, expressed in values, in relation to the total export trade: — Total dairy Butter* Cheese produce exports, exports, exports. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Denmark 30 0 30 Netherlands ....-3 .4 7 Switzerland .... 0 5 » Australia 9: 0 B Canada ........ 0 ■> 2 2 Irish Free State .6 0 ,° New Zealand ... 31 14 . io The Minister said that it would thus bo seen that New Zealand's position was much more serious than that of her rivals, and her difficulties as far. as the dairy industry was concerned could not be compared with those of her competitors. Furthermore New Zealand had a population of 1,500,000 as against -6,000,000 in Australia and 3,500,000 in Denmark, and had not the same- scope for industrial development. Mr. H. G. Dickio (Government, Patea): Are those figures for 1934? Mr. Coates: For 1933-34. The 1934 figures are not yet available. The figures are taken for the same year in the different countries. The Minister said that because of the smallness of the population and the large export percentage, the raising of the internal price would not materially assist the dairy producer. Only 15 per cent, of the total butter manufactured was used internally, and only 4 per cent, of the cheese. When one considered that high percentage of exports in wool, mutton, and lamb one realised what a marvellous country New Zealand was. CHANGE IN BRITAIN. '' Great Britain has adopted a, policy which affects us," said Mr. 'Coates, "and that policy has been forced on Great Britain." The Minister' added that as a result of the reorganisation of British agriculture there had been a complete change of attitude. The individual no longer existed, and in his place there was complete co-operation. The powers asked for in the Bill before the House were nothing when compared I with those taken in the United Kingdom. There was no doubt that the widespread policy of self-sufficiency had brought about the position which j existed today. Because of that policy] Great Britain had been forced to take the action she had done, and the cables which had passed between New Zealand and the British authorities showed the necessity of moving, and moving quickly. "The policy of this country is to work in with Great Britain as far as we can,'.' said Mr. Coates. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Coates said tha,t the trouble was that the industry was divided among itself, and several people were askyng whether the Government had the right to negotiate and see what arrangements could be made. As a result of the cleavage of opinion in the industry ■ and on the Dairy Control Board, no progress was being made. Either New Zealand should make the best arrangements she could, or she should1 adopt a j policy of laissez-faire and let things slide along in opposition to the policy of Great Britain. There had been a great deal of criticism of the Government's policy from the New Zealand Producers' and United Kingdom Importers' Trade Federation. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East): Has that any chance in the Cup? . Mr. Coates: I have my fancy for tho Cup, but it is not that one. He said that it might be argued that the industry should be allowed to govern itself through its own representatives, and that there should bo no Government nominees on tho board of control, but it had to be remembered that the industry was receiving financial assistance from the Government, and that when New Zealand was called upon to negotiate the question of tariffs and quotas also came into consideration. Germany, for example, had an embargo on New Zealand apples, but she wap prepared to make trade arrangements. •

Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central): So is Eussia.

Mr. Coates said that Russia had not approached New Zealand directly. Some time ago arrangements wore made to ship a certain quantity of New Zealand apples of a particular brand to a new market, but when it came to the date for shipping tho order it was several thousands of cases short, and the brand was different from that asked for. It was useless endeavouring to make arrangements for new markets unless there was co-operation from the industries affected. It was therefore necessary to have some co-ordinating authority whose job it would be to carry out investigating work, both in the Dominion and overseas.

Mr. A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames): Would it not be an advantage to have a Minister resident in London?

Mr. Coates replied that ouch a Minister would be suspect. It was necessary that the complete co-operation of the various boards governing the different 'branolies of the primary indus-

tries should be obtained before tho Government could enter into trade negotiations.