GUARANTEED PRICES

Grey River Argus, 9 May 1936, Page 4

GUARANTEED PRICES

BILL PASSED By the House (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 7. The House, after 2 a.m. continued consideration of the Primary Products Marketing Bill in committee. Finally the Bill was read a third time and passed. The House rose at 5.50 a.m. til! 7.30 p.m. The Government was determined that the sitting is not to end until substantial progress hits been made. The Prime Minister declared: “The sitting will go on as long as we wish. We want the bill to go right through, and we at least will make considerable pi ogress before the bells stop ringing. ’' Mr. Polson said the Bill was a crude unstudied plan, and showed evidence of failure on the face of it. It was obvious what would happen, not only to the farmer, but to the Government that put it into operation. He claimed that the Government was ignorant of the feeling of Tooley Street merchants, who would not tell the Government exactly what it thought, and when the butter reached the London markets, difficulties would arise.

Mr. Wright said the majority of electors did not have the Government’s policy explained to them, and they were only now learning what was meant. The Bill introduced new untried principles, and he would join issue with any member who said the Bill would eliminate lliictuations in the export price of primary products. Price was governed by supply, and demand, and it was impossible to fix the price so far as Britain was concerned. People httd not understood how the Government proposed to detil with dairy products, and how the Gove,rument intended to make up any deficiency that arose through the handling of that produce, and for that reason, a plebiscite of the people, not farmers onlv, should be taken.

Mr. Savage at this stage moved that the question be now put, amid a demonstration of opposition from the other side of the House.

The Speaker explained the position of the application of the. closure, and said he could not regard the motion as an abuse of the rights of the House a, the second reading debate had already occupied live sittings, nor was the motion tin infringement of the rights of the minority, as since the amendment was moved, almost all the speakers had already spoken, and those who had not. spoken, allowed others to precede them. Ho therefore proposed to [mt the motion. A division was called for, and the motion was carried by 50 to 20. A division was also called for when the question was put. and the amendment was defeated by 52 to 20. The motion for a second reading was also challenged. but was carried by 52 to 20. 'l’he House went into committee to consider the Bill.

On the short title Mr. Forbes said a number of members considered half an hour was not sufficient to say all they wanted to say. That was why they desired to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Dickie protested against the way the Bill was being rushed through. The Dairy Control Board and other Boards would be shorn o’f their powers and he thought the producers would •J tenuously oppose that. He asked the Government to hold the Bill over till dairy farmers had the opportunity of learning definitely what was happen-

A wrangle developed over the question whether or not Mr. Dickie had a -ked the Prime Minister in a telephone conversation on Sunday morning to defer consideration of the Bill for a week. Mr. Dickie said he did so at the request of the federated factories of Taranaki. Mr. Savage was as positive that no such request was made.

Mr. Smith said that obviously some mistake was made, and he asked the Minister in charge of the Bill to postpone consideration of the Bill, to give the dairy farmers an opportunity of studying the measure to learn how their interests would be affected. The Bill did sot come into effect till August 1. A week or fortnight would make no difference.

Air. Dickie supported the request it- also did Mr. Wilkinson, who said 'he Bill was the most important measure introduced in Parliament since he had been a member. The trouble that faced the farmer was not the marketing of his produce, but the high price of land and high mortgages on land.

Mr. Nash said the Bill was a marketing measure not a farming one. In the [>ast the farmer had been the victim of firms who could do what they liked with him. The hurry with the Bill was due to the Opposition, as the Government desired to have the second reading debate continued till tonight, when the Leader of the Opposition. and then he, himself, would have had the opportunity to have their remarks broadcast. He thought that possibly the Opposition considered the Government’s case would have been strengthened by the broadcast, so blocked it. He claimed that the Bill went before the electors. Before the election 51,000 pamphlets had been circulated to farmers, and the Bill had been before the House more tha-n a week. Ho explained the other steps that had been taken to acquaint' the farmers with the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Holyoake said he believed that even the Government members did not realise the wide powers given and taken under the Bill. He thought the Bill might be called the Primary Products Dictatorship Bill, as it gave the Minister absolutely dictatorial powers over the industry. The Bill cut right across the traditional British rights, which had been won in bitter struggles over centuries.

Mr. Broadfoot wondered if the Minuter were going to take in hand the shipping problem on the coast of New Zealand. He thought that overseas vessels were 100 long on the New Zealand coast. The Bill was certainly a marketing measure, but he obw<-t •• to farmers being treated like children. He considered (hat directors of dairy fac'ories, with a lifetime's experience emild make a better job of marketing I han any Department, of the State. Mr. Nash said the regulations made under ihe Bill had to be approved by Parliament within 28 days of the House sitting, or within 28 days of the opening of Parliament, the Government could not control any primary products, except dairy products with-

out first coming to Parliament. He thought that when the dairy farmer realised what the Government was trying to do was to give him a decent standard of living, he would support the Government. The farmer would get a good price and have one purchaser, and he ventured tw say that Members of the Opposition would be falling over themselves to get it, if it were offered by a private firm. Mr. Forbes urged that the number of firms handling New Zealand produce in Tooley Street, should not be reduced, or the others would swing to New Zealand’s competitors.. It had to be. remembered that production was increasing and the difficulty was to have it consumed. .

Mr. Coates spoke of the difficulties the'Government would encounter when it came to negotiate trade agreements with Britain, but of one thing they could be certain, that was they would not get a bilateral agreement. It seemed impossible for New Zealand with a million and a-half people to raise the price to the dairy farmer to a worth while Level. It would pile a load upon the wage -worker that nobody could calculate.

Mr. Polson said that when it was realised New Zealand had a single seller they would have a single purchaser and he could not imagine a position more grave than that. At 9.15 after a short title had been under discussion for three hours, Mr. Savage moved the closure. This was carried by 51 to 20, and the shorttitle was passed by 51 to 20. Coming to Clause 3, dealing with the appointment of rhe Minister of Marketing, Opposition members fruitlessly tried to ascertain the name of the 'Minister, and Mr. Bodkin moved an amendment, the effect of which was that the Minister of Agriculture should be the Minister of Marketing but this was lost on the voices.

An attempt to have the Primary Products Marketing Department under the Minister of Agriculture was defeated, and the committee passed to Clause 5, dealing with the appointment of administrative and other offices. Clause 6, dealing with the function's of the Department was debated at some length. Mr. Coates said he did not think there was a ease anywhere where, without force had the labour of individuals been commandeered, and perhaps confiscated. Meat prices to-day were almost equal to peak prices. Wool prices were still below a pavable price, but the meat price balanced that. out. The dairy farmer would get nothing out of the Bill though the farmer might see something immediately m front of him. Mr. T. D. Burnett said that if provisions of the Bill were extended to wool, there would be almost a revolution.

Mr. Broadfoot moved an amendment with the object of limiting the functions of the Board, to the question of the control of marketing. The Government benches had been almost empty. A number of members were sleeping in the seats, but the ringing of the division bells summoned members again to the House and the amendment was defeated by •12 to 19.

Mr. Savage moved the closure, which was carried by 51 to 19, and Clause 6 was passed by 49 to 19. Mr. Polson moved an amendment to Clause 10, with the object to placing a reasonable limit regarding ceitain borrowings that might take place. The amendment was lost by 45 to 17.

An amendment by Mr. Sexton providing that a detailed statement showing how the price, fixed for dairy produce was arrived at should be submitted to the House, was lost by 44 to 18, and the clause was passed. On clause 15, -Mr. Kyle moved, as an amendment, that sub-scctiok C. which included in the definition of dairy produce, products of the kind derived from operations usually carried on in conjunction with dairy farming operations (such as rearing calves and pigs), whether such products are actually produced on dairy farms or elsewhere, should be deleted. The closure was applied by 45 to 17. The amendment was defeated also by 45 to It, and the clause xvas passed by 44 for 17. Mr. Polson moved an amendment to clause Hi, with the object of taking a plebiscite, giving the producer a say as to what should be done with his product, but it was ruled out of order as it involved an appropriation. Mr. Kyle'moved that Stewart Island should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but the motion was withdrawn on the understanding that the Minister of Finance would consider the matter. The clause -was retained bv 45 to 17.

Mr. Sexton sought to amend clause 19 in the direction of securing an independent authority to make an investigation and report. He contended it was not right that the same authority that paid the price should fix the price. Mr. Forbes said there would be much more confidence among farmers if Mr. Sexton’s suggestions were carried out.

The amendment was ruled out of order, on the ground that it- involved appropriation. Mr. Sexton moved that instead of the guaranteed price being fixed on the average price over eight to ten years, the period should be fifteen years. The amendment was defeated by 44 to 19.

On the motion of Mr. Nash, a new clause was added, giving the Minister authority to arrange the terms of provisional trade agreements, with a view to the promotion of reciprocal trade. The committee stages of the Bill were completed at 4.10 a.m. On the third reading, Mr. Coates said that neither the country nor the House had had ample opportunity to discuss the importance of various clauses of the Bill and the far-reach-ing effect of the clause. Maybe the Government thought its large majority gave it that right. Tt used that large majority to force through every measure desired to be put thiough. Mr. Polson: Bludgeoned! Mr. Coates: Yes, bludgeoned, if yon like. It was .something new to him, he added. He proceeded to review the arguments used in the earlier stages of the Bill. Mr. Polson said the House had had an unpleasant night, because the measure had been bludgeoned through. The rights of farmers had been taken away from them 'to an extent, it. was diflicuit to contemplate with patience. The Government was laying -down one principle for tho farmer and another for the worker. It was utterly unreasonable and without any sense of equity behind it. The guaranteed price was a confidence trick which had been put across the farmers. The guaranteed price was nothing more than a repayable advance, lie claim-

ed the Opposition had apoted a reasonable attitude in the committee stages, but the Government’s attitude was an abuse of power, such as they had never had before in the history of New Zealand. He said that the Prime Minister had shown no generosity in that debate. His attitude was that of a man who would trample on the enemy when he was down. The Speaker intervened and said that Mr. Polson was introducing irrelevant matters. Mr. Polson said it was clear the Government had no appreciation of Gie problems of the dairy farmer, either in New Zealand or in the Old Country. Mr. Hamilton protested-, against the way the Bill had been rushed through. He said it should have been referred to a committee. The House had been informed that if the Government had a deficit in the Dairy Fund Account in the Reserve Bank, it would not be added to the National Debt, and he would wait with intrest to see how the Audit Department, would deal with the account. If there was a surplus in the account, it showed the farmers had not received the market price for the product. The Minister [hoped to balance the account, but he could not see how that could be done. He wished the Government luck with the BUI. and said that once it became law, the Opposition would assist to have its provisions carried out. Mr. Kyle said the Bill was the greatest piece of despotism that was ever placed on the Statute Book of New Zealand. Mr. Nash, in reply, said it did not seem to matter much who was to be the Minister of Marketing. The question about the appointment was merely CTiriostjty. Regarding the bank account, it had been said that if there was a surplus nothing could be taken out of it. If there was a loss, that was a national loss in the interests of giving the farmer an economic return for his labour. When fixing the price to be paid, the dairy industry would be consulted. The price will be. such that the dairy' farmer would jump at it. if offered by a private person. The Government, as the only seller, was not trying to exploit the market, but to adjust the balance between the producer and the consumer. He welcomed criticism of the type that came from Mr. Hamilton who had shown a standard of debate that was worthy of being followed by members on both sides of the House. Tic alleged that Mr. Polson had not played the game in making some of the statements he did.

Referring to the requests for a plebiscite. Mr. Nash said the Government had been in close touch with the dairy industry for months past Opposition members had said that subsidising farmers might affect negotiations with Britain, lint the last Government had been subsidising farmers' for years past, in the way of fertilisers, free carriage of lime on railwavs, .and in other wavs.