“GREAT BETRAYAL OF FARMER’S INTERESTS"

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 121, 6 May 1936, Page 9

“GREAT BETRAYAL OF FARMER’S INTERESTS"

Produce Marketing

MR POLSON’S VIEWS Government Members Reply to Criticism NO PROGRESS MADE By Telegraph— Press Association WELLINGTON, May 5. In the House of Representatives thia afternoon urgency ■was accorded the passing of the second reading of the Primary Products Marketing BiU. The motion was opuosed by the Opposition, but was canted by 48 votes to 15. Mr J. Thorn (Govt.) said that Labour candidates in election speeches made it clear that if the Guaranteed Price Bill was passed produce would become the property of the Government. He alleged that Mr Coates, in his speech on the Hill, had been scaremongering. The Labour Party's policy had been placed before the country for many years, and if the people placed the Labour Party in power, then surely it was ridiculous for the claim made by Mr Coates aud other Opposition speakers that the Government had no mandate to put its guaranteed price scheme into operation. Mr W. P. Polson (Nat.) said that the House and country would want to know why the policy contained in the Bill had not been set out by the Labour Party during the election. Mr Savage should have said the objective of the Government was straight-out socialisation. The Bill was the greatest betrayal of the interests of the farmer that had ever taken place in New Zealand. The word of the Labour Party, given during the election, had been gone back on completely. He challenged Mr Savage to deny that what had been done was the exact opposite to what was said would be done. Mr Savage: No. Fanners are telegraphing approval to mo every day. COSTS WOULD GO UP.

Mr Polson referred to the inexperience of those who were handling the marketing of New Zealand produce. As an instance, he said that the original proposal was to give the Co-operative Wholesale Society of Britain a hand in marketing New Zealand produce. The Government did not realise that the C.W.B. was an organisation created to purchase for an enormous clientele cheap goods at a low price. New Zea land wanted to sell high-class produce in the beet market it could. If the Government was going to fix the guaranteed price on the average of the last eight, nine, or ten years, the price would be no better than the farmer was receiving to-day. The fanner would find his costs had gone up. Labour costs would be up a penny a lb., and indirect costs must go up, nobody could tell how much, but they must go up substantially. He did not think the Minister’s crude proposition would be well received when it was placed before the British Government. For years past the Government had been trying to execute trade agreements, and they knew Britain had her own difficulties. She had to look after her customers all over the world, and could jiot make fish of one and flesh of another. She could not make bilateral agreements. The Government’s policy would reduce the dairy farmer to the status of the lowest-paid worker in Industry. It would wreck New Zealand's overseas markets, and if persisted in would bring New Zealand’s whole economic system down like a house on fire. Mr D. McDougall (Ind.) said that the Bill would provide something for the wife of the dairy farmer, and very often she had the hardest job of the lot. If labour costs did go up they went back indirectly to the farmer, and he was the gainer.

PRODUCERS, NOT SPECULATORS. Mr D. Barnes (Govt.) contended that farmers must be treated as producers, not speculators. If the farmer’s income could bo stabilised it would go a long way towards stabilising all incomes, and while overseas prices should be con sidered in the new scheme they should not be the determining factor. He could not understand farmers opposing the Bill. No business man would oppose guaranteed prices for his goods. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Nat.) said it was well known that the present Gov ernment held office chiefly as the result of promises made to farmers, particularly those engaged in the dairying industry. He contended that the Government should make known the price it was going to fix. The price would undoubtedly rise in the cities, and inflation would occur under the Bill. He sympathised with the Minister, who was on the horns of a dilemma and waiting for something to turn up. He agreed that the farmer should receive full prices for his produce, but was op posed to fictitious prices. He thought the people most vitally affected by the Bill should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the measure. Farmers would bo disappointed and disillusioned, and would find they bad been misled by the figures mentioned by the Minister.

A SOCIALISTIC BILL. Mr 0. Wilson (Govt.) said there was no shortage of goods and plenty of room for expansion. The trouble' was distribution, which was tho major problem. of the world and a problem with which New Zealand was immediately concerned. He agreed that the Bill was a socialistic one. He thought that at the end of three years the people’s cry would be, “If that is Socialism let us have some more of it.” Mr Wilson said that the Bill would assist to a great extent to bring economic stability to the Dominion, and under the Bill they would be able to give greater encouragement to the quality of produce It also provided for more economic distribution in New Zealand, llie Bill would enable New Zealand to obtain the best price available on the open market. He thought there was no question but that genuine distributive firms in Tooley street who handled New Zealand produce favoured the Bill. They knew it was in the interests of the English consumer and the New Zealand producer. He defended the Co-operative Society of Britain, and thought it would serve New Zealand as well in the future as in the past in distributing New Zealand produce. He thought they would be able to prove to all those who were not prejudiced that the measure before the House and ones following it on the same lines were definitely in the interests of New Zealand, and that the socialist principles they embodied were the only principles which would bring some solution to the great economic problem of the present day—that of poverty in the midst of plenty.

A POWERFUL BODY. Mr R. A. Wright (Ind.) reminded Mr Wilson that Tooley street distributors were a powerful body. It remained to be seen if they were in favour of the Bill. They were not philanthropists, but were keen business men. Humanitarianism was not allowed to interfere with their business. New Zealand would have to be very careful because of the power they possessed. The Bill, he contended, did a very grave injustice to one section of the people in New Zealand—those engaged in the export trade. Their employees would be dismissed and what would become of them ? He thought tho number affected would be 160 or 170, and as they probably had dependents a conservative estimate would put the number at about 320. Mr Wright alleged that the dice was definitely against the city people, and that at the next election the result would depend on the dairy fanners’ votes. The Bill was directly <>)>,,( to the interests of his constituents, and was definitely class legislation. Mr J. A. Lee (Gcvt.) said that thB Bill was not going to give a knock-out blow to any firm giving service to the community, but it was going to give a knock-out blow to the speculator. It was not claimed that the Bill was the last word in marketing, but it would be of great benefit to the dairy farmer. Even farmers’ organisations in Mr Coates’s electorate bad telegraphed the

Prime Minister expressing approval of the Bill. To-day half the benefit of the farmer’s labour was taken from him by the speculator. The Government wonted to break away from tho

world price level and give the farmer in New Zealand the wherewithal to enable him to obtain the necessaries oi life in New Zealand. Members, he said, spoke of the influence of Tooley street, and said merchants would go to Japan or some other place for butter, but they forgot that New Zealand had a great debt to Britain. In that connection he thought the interest rates were, too high. Perhaps one day the Government would go to Britain and ask her to give New Zealand as good a deal as she gave tho French and the Italians.

GAMBLING WITH PRODUCE. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat.) claimed that the last Government had saved the dairy industry by raising the exchange. He asked how the Government would carry on the guaranteed prices if butter dropped to 8d a Ib.t If they had another depression like the last it would mean socialisation of Now Zealand’s produce at a cost of £30,000,000 a year. The Government was gambling with the people’s produce. Now that the Budget had been balanced the people were looking for a reduction in taxation, but the people wore being taxed out of sight to find the guaranteed price suggested under the Bill. Mr H. M. Rushworth (Country) said that many members were desirous that dairy farmers and others should bo placed in a position where they would recover their financial losses, and unless something of the nature provided for in the Bill were adopted there was no possibility of their getting out of debt. Mr W. P. Endean (Nat.) said it was quite possible that the prico for butterfat would descend to 6d again, and in that case the unfortunate taxpayer would have to meet a deficit. The Hon. 8. G. .Smith (Nat.) contended that when everything was measured up it would require a guaranteed price of 8/- to 2/6 to enable the dairy farmers to live up to increased costs for production, higher wages and increased price for everything. AMENDMENT MOVED. At 1.3 a.m. the Hon. A. Hamilton (Nat.) moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back on the following grounds:—lt restricted individual ownership and private rights; it purported to eliminate price fluctuations but failed to do so; it sought to fix prices when there was every indication of market improvements; that the methods of fixing prices outlined in the Bill were impractical; that the good will of purchasers overseas would be injuriously affected; that tho provisions should receive the approval of a plebiscite of dairy farmers; that other means of assisting the dairy farmer could be found which would prove more satisfactory than those outlined in the Bill. Tho debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 1.7 a.m.