PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 22327, 1 May 1936, Page 8

PARLIAMENT

THIS MORNING'S SITTING CRITICS OF MARKETING BILL [Pek United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 1. The House met at 10.30 a.m. The Alsatian Dog Bill was read a first ty’me. The second reading debate of the Primary’ Products Marketing Bill was resumed.

Mr Hargcst said the Bill was another step towards the socialisation of the Dominion, and they would find before long that a Bill providing for socialising the means of production would be introduced. Despite the Prime Minister’s appeals to the farmers to trust him, they would find that they were being led over a precipice from which there was no returning. It was the old story of the spider and the fly’, and if the Prime Minister thought the farmer would be as easily led into tbo parlour as the fly, then he was underrating the intelligence of the farmer. He claimed that the fact that the Minister of Finance was entrusted with the Bill showed that the Minister of Agriculture did not have the confidence of his follow-Ministers.

Mr Savage: That is not fair. Mr Hargest: I think it is quite fair. Mr Nash: This is marketing; it has nothing to do with producing. Mr Hargest: “ It is entirely an agricultural concern.” He continued to say that the Bill was not an attempt to guarantee prices, as the people were led to believe. The Bill meant increasing costs, and later there might be a levy. The Opposition believed in cooperation, and if all sections got together and composed their differences, much good would result; but the Minister was asking the Opposition to cooperate with Socialism, to which they had always been opposed. What was the use of asking for co-operation under such circumstances. The Opposition would oppose the Bill from start to finish, as it believed it was not in the interests of the country. Mr Williams said it was presumption on the part of the Opposition to attempt to dictate which Minister should have charge of the Bill. Since the war the dairy farmer bad not known from month to month or year to year what his returns were to be. The Bill proposed to give the dairy farmer what the wheat farmer had already enjoyed —an assurance of a guaranteed income. This had been of inestimable value to the wheat farmer, and that feeling of security would now be given to a more important section of the primary industry, the dairy farmer. Mr Coates had spoken of piracy, but it was a queer idea of piracy when the pirate improved the position of his victim. Unless the position was stabilised long-range planning, which was so desirable, was impracticable, and the farmer could have no satisfactorv system of budgeting. Mr Wilkinson said there could he no doubt about the Government’s success at the poll, but when speaking of a mandate what was the value when they took into consideration that they were dealing with a particular section of the people who by no means gave any mandate to the Government to do any such thing. The people affected by the Bill were expected to accept it without having the opportunity of saying no. Such a position was unfair, and would never ho tolerated by those concerned. Any Government that interfered with the small farmer, particularly the dairy farmer, always suffered at a poll, and invariably the Ministers of Agriculture had been defeated because they endeavoured to impose restrictions on the dairy farmer. He ventured to predict that many Government members holding country seats would lose their seats at next elections. He contended that "the Bill did not give the farmer a fair deal when it did not give him a say in the price to be fixed. The farmers wore to be treated as children, incapable of managing their on affwairs. _ Mr Wilkinson questioned the advisability of the whole Bill, and) said it was a dangerous experiment of doubtful value to the State. He hoped that the Government when fixing the price would take into consideration the price of cheese compared with the price of butter. Where would the dairy farmer obtain labour for his farm? He feared 1 the farmer would not be able to compete with the Government as an employer, and the position of the farmer would be precarious. He asked the Government to reconsider the whole position and allow the farmer to do his own marketing; and, if prices fell too low, fix a minimum price. Ho thought the Government was embarking on a policy that would react greatly to its disadvantage in days to come.

Mr Barclay alleged that the people of his electorate gave the Government a definite mandate, and the same mandate was given in many other electorates, although the Taranaki fanners gave no mandate. He quoted the position of suppliers to the Whangarei Dairy Company and said 760 suppliers, who had between seven and forty-two cows, averaged £144 of gross income or less than £3 a week from that interest. Other charges had to be deducted, so that the fanners were receiving less than many relief workers. He had told his electorate that their produce would be taken over. There was no question of a guaranteed price, and ho was not afraid of what his electors would think of the Bill. The Bill could not he called a pirating measure, when it was .definitely placed before the electors. The last Government passed a tremendous amount of legislation which was never put before Parliament, and tho extension of the life of Parliament meant postponing for a year placing the Bill before the House.,

Mr Barclay disagreed with the desirability of taking a plebiscite of dairy farmers. The plebiscite was taken on November 27, and the Government was given a mandate. He claimed that increased wages and the shortening of hours did not necessarily mean the raising of the costs of production. Mr Roy said the majority on the Government benches camo from an Auckland electorate as far as the country was concerned, and the election was fought on a monetary question, not on guaranteed prices. The policy followed by the Government was not the policy placed before the electors, and the farming electors should he given a chance to express their opinion on the Hill. Ho admitted that the farmers were attracted by a guaranteed price, hut when the price rose higlvu’ than the guaranteed price it would be a different story.

.Mr Cullen said the Bill would stop the serious competition there was between the factories, and the farmer was often suffering through having to send his cream over long distances. The lunch adjournment was Liken.