ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 July 1939, Page 2

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

GUARANTEED PRICE ISSUE.

[FEB PRESS ASSOCIATIONS

WELLINGTON, July IS.

The Address-in-Reply debate was continued by Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford), when the House resumed at 7.30 pan. Ho claimed that the Munster for Finance had learned, during his present visit to London, that New Zealand’s insulation policy Ind broken down. Mr Polson proceeded to criticise the guaranteed price for the dairy farmer. He stated that increasing costs were making it extremely difficult for farmers to carry on. Conditions promised the dairy farmer han been abandoned. In view of this, could th© Government expect the sheepfarmer to be enthusiastic about a guaranteed price for wool? Mr J. G. Barclay (Govt., Marsden) expressed the opinion that, the farmei t'.-day'was in exactly the sarne position as that of a trades unionist. Tluu was. if he had a grievance ho could go to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Agriculture, and seek redress. In view of the Prime Minister’s intimation concerning the proposal to hold a plebiscite as to the guaranteed price, he thought that the Opposition members, especialy those representing dairying districts, should an—, noupco their attitude to such plebiscite. Since the Prime Minister's announcement, he ,said, the .Government had received a large number of telegrams and letters from the working dairy farmers, strongly supporting the guaranteed price policy, and stating that the leaders of the Farmers’ Union in opposing it, were not truly representing the views of. the majority of the farmers. Referring to .the proposed guaranteed price for <vool, Mr Barclay said that wool would come down again in price in tne near future, and then a demand would come along from the sheepffirmer for a guaranteed price, just as it had come from the d’airyfaymer, and the Government would give it to them“Wo on this sjde of the House,” he, said, “are fighting the fight for the farmer, make no error about that!” SOCIALISM DEFINED. Mr C. H. Chapman (Govt., Wellington North) said that the Opposition had asked for a definition of Socialism. Personally, his definition 01. Socialism was that'if a thing could he better managed on behalf of the people by the State, or by an appropriate local body, it should bo so managed. That, was the whole basis of Socialism, as he understood it, as advocated by the Government, and also by some members of the Opposition.

Mr Chapman attacked the newspapers. He said that they were making bigger profits under the Labour Government than they had done previously. In fact, he said, the newspaper industry was one of the most lucrative in the D.cmjnion. He stressed the service that the Government had given fhe people as the result of its housing policy, reduction cf hours of work, and education. He went on to ileal with Dr. A. J. Cronin’s book, “The Citadel,” citing cases quoted in the book of heavy charges levied by medical men on patients. New Zealand doctors, lie said, were no better and no worse than those overseas, and it was to protect the people from becoming involved in debt to medical men that the Social Security Act had been passed. Mr E. B. K. Gordon (Nat., Rangitikei), who was making his maiden speech, said he would like the Government to define its land policy. Was it to be community farming and the creation of a State peasantry? He was sure that young- men would nor tube up farming under those conditions. ' One thing which the farmer valued was his independence, and liberty to work his farm as he wanted t.o work it. So far, twenty-seven Government speakers, fourteen Opposition and one Independent member have taken part in the debate. * The Hguse rose at 10.30.