Dairy Produce Control

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 179, 14 July 1927, Page 7

Dairy Produce Control

Debate in the House. PRIME MINISTERS REPLY. THE CONFIDENTIAL CABLE. Wellington. July 13. In disc us sin £ dairy control in the House of Representatives to-dav. Hie Premier (Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates) said the Leader of th© Opposition had tried to put the Government off side with the producers and get on side with himself. He (Mr Coaes) was himself a producer, and knew from experience the whole history of cooperation amongst the farmers. In dealing with dairy control in London. he maintained that he had no other motive than the good of the producers in New Zealand. In these circumstances he could not refuse to see the dealers of Tooley Street, rie saw them in order to get their view After that he saw the local board and although he did not believe in fixing prices, and told tue board so. he also told them : “Very well, if vou won’t be advised, let us see if. by combined effort, we can reach a success.’ He justified his confidential cable to the Government on th© ground that it was madness to adopt a policy cf “open book” in business. His cable was based on hts considered opinion after he had see nneople who were able to give him sound advice. He felt sure now that if the board had gone steadily at that time they would have been further ahead to-dav. When people tried to fix prices they must remember that there was foreign competition to cope with, and that was the position in which the New Zealand dairy producers were. MR PATTERSON’S POSITION.

Dealing with Mr Patterson’s appointment. he said Mr Patterson’s name was submitted to the- Dairy Board and no objection was taken to him. He could not be retired summarily ; he had a contract which could not be broken without his consent. In any case. Mr Patterson did not affect the position vitallv. because he tlone on the London committee was against price fixing. He denied emphatically that the Government had ever in anv way dictated to Mr Patterson what line of action he should take. It was. however, a pity there was not unanimity amongst the London representatives, as it was this dissension which told against success. He denied that he shut out Mr Grounds from the-inter-view with the Tooley Street merchants. Mr Grounds knew his views perfectly well, and was later dulv informed of what had been done. It was the board not the Prime Minister. who put these Tooley Street merchants on the board, and he was not in any wav responsible for that step. He had not accepted Mr Patterson’s resignation in November, because it was not then in. He realised that Mr Patterson was not very happy in his relations with the board, but he (Mr Coates) had done his hest to induce him to work harmoniously with the board and make its nolicv a success. e A WRONG IMPRESSION.

Price fixation had created a impression in Britain . There the idea had arisen that the New Zealand producers wanted to wring the last farthing out of the British consumers. Thev therefore looked upon foreign butter as a healthy competitor that must be supported to keep prices down. If Mr Holland believed in price-fixing in Britain, he must logically be in favour of fixing the price of butter in New Zealand. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said the insincerity of the Government in the matter of control was shown bv their appointment of Mr Patterson as Government representative on the London committee when he was opposed to control from the first. The Prime Minister said Mr Patterson recognised that the producers had a right to continue to market their produce : it was only a question of method. Continuing. Mr Fraser said Mr Patterson was so much in favour of control that no sooner had Mr Grounds arrived in London than Mr Patterson approached him and urged him to get rid of control altogether. He wanted suso to get rid of Mr Wright, and generally opposed the board’s policy I’x--jciience had shown that the moment the Prim© Minister met Toolev Street he abdicated and allowed the policy of Parliament and the country to be flouted. What he should have done was to tell Toolp- Street that control was the, settled policy of this country, and if thev would not help there were other avenues which might be explored when the board’s policy was turned down in London.

THE CORRECT' ACTION. The Hon. O. J. Hawken said the action taken bv th© Prime Minister in London was the correct one. It was his duty to warn the board if there was danger, and his cable frow* London was in the nature of a warning. That cable was marked “confidential” and the acting-chairman of the board failed greatly in his duty by permitting its publication. Mr Patterson’s cable was also a warning, and was confidential, and it was the publication of these cables which brought about the whole trouble. He had consulted the board about Mr Patterson’s appointment and thev agreed. He was selected because of his high position in business circles No member of the Government was against control, but thev did have doubts about fixing prices. Th© board made a mistake in fixing prices, because thev did not foresee the extent of the opposition that would arise from those who had been dealing in our butter for ./ears. Had there been a shortage in London the board might have won out for a time, but as it was failure was certain. and the publication of the cable had nothing to do with it. He hoped the control legislation would be tested out furthey. but the board must go cerfullv. WITH CLEAN HANDS. Mr H. L. Taplev (Dunedin North) said impartial consideration of the facts would show that the Government came out of tho controversy with clean hands. He hoped someone would introduce a bill taking a wav from the board the powers of compulsion wliic.li ended in disaster. If the views of flip minority of the House had been atoudeJ to when lie original bill came before the House, the farmers of the country woul<l nol ho in Iho posihon thev were in to-day.

(Contmoed on Next Colunm).

(Continued from Previous Column)

Mr J. McCombs (Lyttelton) said the charge against the Prime Minister was that he associated himself with Mr Patterson’s cable to the board before he had heard MiGrounds’ side of thg case. There was no escape from that position. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) said there was no doubt chat daizv control had failed and. worse stiff, the farmers had been brought down with it. The farmers had lost over £2,000,000 and were waking up. It was quite evident thev were determined to ?*et rid of it. He objected to the high levies made bv the board as being extravagant. The lioard had evidently not learned to uonlrol expenditure. As an instance, thev were paying £4OOO to a firm of auditors. when (he work could have been done for £lOOO. The funds they had piled up would have been of more service io (lie farmers in (ho hard season they had been paaivng tbrrottuh..