GUARANTEED PRICES

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1936, Page 8

GUARANTEED PRICES

Debate on Bill (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Ma.v 1. .Speaking o n tho second readino- of the Primary Products ■was resumed. Air. Largest said that the Bill was another step towards socialisation. It was the old story of the spider and the fly, and if t.h-'> .Prime Minister thought that the farmer would be as easily led in to the parlour as the fly. then lie was underrating the intelligence of the farmer. He claimed that the fact that the Alinistei- of Finance was entrusted with the Bill showed that the Minister of Agriculture did not have the confidence of his fellqw-Alinisters.

Mr. Savage: That is not fair. Mr. Largest; I think it is quite fair.

Air. Nash: Tin’s is marketing. Tt has nnthmg to do with producing. Air. Largest; It is entirelv an agricultural concern. Tho Bill was not an attempt to guarantee prices. The Bill meant increasing costs and later there m’ght be a levy. The Onpos : toin believed in co-operation, and if all sections got together and eomiiosoj t.he’r differences, much good would result, hut the Afinister was asking the Onposition to co-operate with Socialism, to which they had always been opposed, What was the use of ask’ng for co-operation under such circumstances?

Air Williams said that it was nresumpt'on on the part of the Opposition, to attempt to dictate which Minister should have charge of the B' 1 ’ Since the war. the, da'i-v farmer 6'6 not know from month to month, or vear to rear, what his returns were tn be. The Bill proposed tn give the dairy farmer what the wheat farmer already enjoved. The assurance of a giiaranf ee<] income had been o* - inestimable value- to the wheat farmer. That feeling of security would now bn given tn a more-imnortant section of primary industry the dn rv farmer. Mr. Coates had spoken of p’rnev. hut it was a queer idea of piracy when the pirate improved Hie position of Ips victims unless the position was stabilised, long-range plaunv’e- v-l’-e ■ was so desirable, was : nmra el icable, and the farmer could have no satisfaetor’- system of lindeet-ng. Mr. Wilkinson said Hint there could hc'nn doubt about the • Government’s success at the poll, but when speakino- of Hie mandate', what was its value when they took i"tn consideration flint they were dcabnff with a varticnlar section of the people, who bv no means o-nvn ni'v mandat" tn the Government tn do anv such tiling. The people affected bv Hm B’ll were expected to accept it. without hav ; n<r an opportunity of saving "No” Anv Government that interfered with Hm small farmer particularly tlm dairv farmer. always suffered at Hm noil, and invariably Hm Minister of Agri-r-iiltnre had been defeated. because they endeavoured to impose rostrwt’ons on the da : rv fanner. Le contended that Hie Bill did not give the farmer <i fair deal, when it did not give him a sav in Hm price to ho fixe. Tlm farmers were to he treated as children incapable of managing their own affairs. Tt was a dangerous exrmr’ment of doubtful value to the State. He honed tlm Government when fix'im- Hi" price would take into consideration Hie price of cheese compared with the nrie- of butter. Where ■would Hm dairv farmer obtain labour for his farm? TTu fenrod Hm farmer would not be able tn compote with tho Government ns an omnlover. and dj... i.o.sition of tlm farmer would h 1 ’ precarious. IT,, asked Hie Govornnion 1 ' fn reconsider Hm -who].. pos : tion and alloy- tlm farmer fn ( ]o hi< nwn m'arkoUnv and if pi'ieos fill ton low. to fix •. minimum price.

Mr. Borclav said Hmt t'm mmyile of his rilccfornfgave the Go'--e"nm r 'iit a definite mandate ami Hie niftndnto <yivPii ni nv’nv other el'Wforntes. althinich th.. Tar'’nnki farmers cave no mandate. TT. o'infed Hm .-osifmn of supnlierc fn the Wbangavei Dairv C’omnanv Of 750 surmliers who had lii'twe.’n seven and 42 cows, they average £144 of cross ’ni'om'e or less Hia.n C 3 n week. From flint interest and other ehnrffes had fn 1..-. derluefi'd. so formers were Teecivin?' less.- than manv r"licf workers. TT.' ba,l foil hi< I’leefoi-nte that their nro-dm-e would Tie taken nvr*r. so flior ri was no question of a gnaranfood iirieo an,] be was not afr.'rd of what h's elrnfors would think o f ' Hie B : U The Bill couh 1 not b.. eal'e.i a niratinomria<iiro when it was def nifely ..laced before the electors. The lari Government passed a tremendous amount of len-iri'itinn which was never pnf I"'‘ fore B'lrl’amenf. Tho extension of the I'fo of Parliament meant nnstnnnin" for a vear tho plnoinq nf th" B’ll before the TTonso. Hr disagreed with the desirability to tak'ng a plebiscite of dairv farmers. A vlob'scif.. was taken on November 27. ami file Government was given a m'amlnte. lie' el,'limed that increased wages and shorleniiin- hours d : d not necessarily mean raising ‘he cost of production. Mr. Bov said the major'fv on the Government benches canin from the Am-kluml electorate. So far a.s the country was concerned, the election was fonjif on tho moiP'farv question no< guaranteed prices. Tho policy followed bv Hie Government was not the policy placed Imfore the c,lectors, and f-irmintr electors should bo given the r-hance to express their opinion on the B'-lh U" admitted that farmers were attracted bv the guaranteed prieo. When the price rose higher than the guaraniced prec it would l>n a. different story.

Air. Pullen said the B’ll would slop the serious competition there was between factories, and the farmer wa c off.vi suffering through having to send his cream over lon°- distances. S : r A Ransom said the sneeeh of firn Primo Afinister was that of a. dr"-nno'- ].iit entirely laekmg in anv nractieal sense of administration. Fa-mors did not expect a fixed hut rather a. guaranteed m’riinmm that.+hey could follow their own svs'om of markef ing. ami anv profits there, were would go fo them'. 'l’he Government (“oiild dragoon tho Now 'Zoal-iml consumer into accepting th>* Bill, bid could iiot dragoon Toobw Street or other countries to do The Government had not mentioned Hie nr'ce to be paid, but regarding the butter average T.riee in the last eight vc:ir- it was 12.76 nonce, nine vears 13.(1311. I"ii years 13.59 J. 'file cheese average over the last eight vears was 13.626. nine years 13.886. ten years 14.176. which shows Hm farmer mav not get 'Hivtliing more then he would got under ordinarv conditions hut fm-lorv prices- would bo increased, and freights increased. Il was doubtful if Hie farmer was going Io gain nny

benefit. The Government was going to pay for produce by overdraft from the Reserve Bank, but there was no p'rivision for payment of interest on the overdraft. He regarded the legislation as a dangerous experiment. Air. Lee Alartin said the Government ■was going to live up to its responsibilities, ami 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 ol speculators and manipulators, who worked things for their own interests. Sir A. Ransom had said the Government was fixing the price, but the Prime Afjnister had promised a guaranteed price to the farmer, and the price was guaranteed in the Bill. Between 1924 and. 1933. exports of butter increased bx 1.365.792ewt, but the increase in price was £.7000. The last Government had allowmd Hie position to drift. The work of the Labour Party would satisfy the people of the Dominion. Sir A. Ransom had failed to realise that New Zealand was to produce marvellous results, so far as the labour and leisure of the people were conccined. Air. Dickie said that one of the main planks in the Labour Party’s platform had always been n referendum. Air Savage would probably bo going to Britain in connection with a Jong-term policy which would be put in efleet when the Ottawa Agreements expired next year, and bonus-fed industries would 'be taken into account when duties or levies were being, considered so it was particularly desirable that New Zealand should have a .more or less clean sheet when approaching those negotiations. lie hoped the industry would be given an opportunity to take a vote on ‘-he matter. Air. Langstone said that the last Government’s policy was to raise prices bv making a scarcity, but the present Governnicnt.’s policy was plenty and right prices, not scarcity and high prices. When the Bill was passed, the farmer would know exactly what his income w’as going to be. He said that 90 per cent? of diary farmers would welcome the measure. He thought the British people had a complaint against New Zealand under tho present marketing system, under which New Zealand goods were sold to Britain hut no goods bought back. The Bill would bring prosperity to every homo in New Zealand to enjoy the social conditions the Labour Government had made possible.