THE GUARANTEE BILL

Evening Star, Issue 22327, 1 May 1936, Page 6

THE GUARANTEE BILL

DEBATE STILL UNFINISHED The House resumed at 7.30 p.nn, with the second reading debate on the Primary Products Marketing Bill. Sir A. Ransom said the speech of the Prime Miinster was that of a dreamer, entirely lacking in any practical sense of administration. The Government was disregarding all financial responsibility as far as the country was concerned. The Minister of Finance’s speech was ho more practical than that of the Prime Minister ? and why was . the Minister of Finance, who was art accountant, introducing a Bill which really belonged to the Minister of Agriculture, who was a practical farmer, while the Minister of Finance showed that he had no knowledge of agriculture. The Minister had thanked his officers for their co-operation, but there was nothing else they could do, except get out. The Government were going to scrap the co-operative system of marketing and undertake the entire marketing of primary products of the Dominion, starting with dairy produce. The farmers did not expect a fixed, but rather a guaranteed, minimum, so that they could follow their own system of marketing, and any profits there were would go to them. The last Government followed the system of guaranteeing a minimum price in the case of apples and tobacco, and the growers received the benefit of the higher prices that were realised. The Government could dragoon the New Zealand consumer into accepting the Bill, but it could not dragoon Toolcy Street or other countries to do so, and he could imagine the jubilation of other countries, who would take full advantage of the position. The Government had not mentioned the price to be paid, but the average prices over the period showed that the farmer might not get anything more than be would get under ordinary conditions, but factory prices would be increased, and freights would be increased, and it was doubtful if the farmer was going to gain any benefit at all. No incentive would be given to the farmer to increase his production, undertake top dressing, and so on. The first section of primary industry to feel the effect of the slump was the sheep farmers, whose income fell by more than 10i million. They had struggled along, mid to-day their situation was materially improved, and with the exception of the price of wool, the returns they were receiving were fairly satisfactory, especially mutton and lamb. He outlined the steps taken by th© last Government to assist the farmers. „ ' , Sir A. Ransom said the Government was going to pay for the produce by overdraft from the Reserve Bank, but there was no provision for payment of interest on overdraft. There were serious questions for the Government to answer. They bad the future of the Dominion in their hands, and it was for them to say whether they ivere going to make or mar this fair land, and their actions would be watched with anxiety. He regarded the legislation as a dangerous experiment and revolutionary in character. The principle underlying it was unsound, and it would in all probability end in disaster and a heavy loss to those whom the legislation was designed to help. ( The Hon. Lee Martin said the Government was going to live up to its responsibilities, and was not going to repudiate any of them. The price was not being disclosed because the Government was not placing itself in the hands of speculators. The, _ legislation was brought down to stabilise the position of the dairy farmer, who for so long had been in the hands of speculators and manipulators, who worked tilings for their own interests. Sir Allred Ransom had said the Government was not guaranteeing a price, but fixing a price; but the Prime Minister bad promised a guaranteed price to the farmer and the price was guaranteed in the Bill. He quoted at length passages of speeches made by the Prime Minister to show that the Government was carrying out the policy it had outlined to the electors. He said that between 1924 and 1933 the exports of butter increased bv 1,365,/92cwt. but the increase in price was £7,000. There was nothing wrong with the farmer. What was wrong was the price he received and the late Government had allowed the position to drift. There was no doubt the work of the Labour Party would satisfy the people ot the Dominion. The Government was determined that it would place before the people the legislation it believed would be for the benefit of the whole Dominion. Sir Alfred had failed to realise that New Zealand was entering on a new era. which was destined to produce marvellous results as far as the labour and the leisure of the people were conI cerned.

Mr Dickie said that after hearing Mr Martin he knew why the Bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance, because the Minister had skated round the subject and said little about the Bill. Government speakers blamed the last Government for the situation, but they knew that the measures given effect to lessened the blow to all sections of the community, and that the causes of the slump were entirely outside the Dominion. In some cases restrictions on imports were imposed which almost amounted to a blockade, and New Zealand had to fall back on the London market. He thought the Bill was introduced at an unfortunate time, and no plebiscite had been taken among the dairy farmers to show whether they desired to come under the Bill at all.

Mr Lee: They said it at the election. Mr Dickie said one of the main planks in the Labour Party’s platform always had been the referendum. Mr Savage would probably be going to Britain in connection with the longterm policy which would be put into , effect when the Ottawa Agreements expired next year, and bonns-fed industries would be taken into account when duties or levies were being considered; so it was particularly desirable that New Zealand should have more or less a clean sheet when approaching those negotiations. It was well known that the Paterson Plan in Australia placed that country at a disadvantage when agreements were being considered. He hoped the industry would be given an opportunity to take a vote on the matter. Mr Dickie said the Government had stated that it was going to take precautions against a boom in land transactions, but that was a pious hope. It was a difficult thing to do. New Zealand had built up a good reputation in Britain, and anybody wbo did anything to harm that was doing a grave disservice to the country. He contended that if the Government made known the price to be paid it would curb land speculation more than, by keeping the price secret. Mr Langstone said Mr Coates was responsible' for the „breakdown of New Zealand’s marketing system in 1926. He was responsible for the cut-throat competition which existed. The last Government’s policy was to raise prices by making a scarcity, but the present Government’s policy was plenty and right prices, not scarcity and high prices. It was practically impossible for the farmers themselves to control marketing, and the logical step was for the Government to do it and to protect the farmers from manipulators and speculators. When the Bill passed the farmer would know exactly what his income was going to be, and 90 per cent, of the dairy farmers would welcome the measure. The Government would take control of exchange, and for the first time in history would become a trader. He thought the British people had a complaint against New Zealand under the present marketing system, under which New Zealand goods were sold to Britain, but no goods brought back. He claimed that the only decent agreements that could be made were agreements between Governments, and that the Bill gave the Government power to negotiate. Mr Langstone said the Bill would bring prosperity to every home in New Zealand, and would attract people to New Zealand to enjoy the social conditions the Labour Government had made possible. Mr Sexton said the dairy farmers had found it impossible to pay better prices because of the low returns they received for their products. He believed it was because of the policy of deflation adopted. It was essential that the House should be supplied with information in, annual reports which would show how the price paid was arrived at. He asked the Government to make clear whether it would purchase the whole of New Zealand’s output, because there was no mention of the quantity to be purchased in the Bill. If the Bill, when passed, was well administered, it might well prove a charter of salvation to the dairy farmer, and later to other sections of the community. Mr Roberts thought the Bill was an honest endeavour to meet the farmers’ difficulties, and believed it would go a long way to help him. The Bill disposed of the farmers’ five years’ period of trial under the mortgage legislation of the last Government. He thought the dairy industry had nothing to fear; the outlook for it had never been brighter. The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.