URGENCY FOR FIRST READING

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 281, 26 October 1934, Page 9

URGENCY FOR FIRST READING

STEP CHALLENGED. OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL DEBATE. • The debate oil the Unemployment Bill was interrupted when the Agricultural (Emergency Powers) Bill was introduced. lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes moved that urgency be accorded the first reading of the Bill, but that was challenged and a division was called for. Urgency was accorded by 33 votes to 24. Mr M. J. Savage asked what the Bill contained and whether the industry would have an opportunity of considering it before it was passed. Mr A. M. Samuel gaid he was apprehensive concerning the Bill, and thought that, if the first reading were

passed, the remaining stages would be l ushed through next week. That was the first time the industry had been completely changed without the industry being consulted. The proposed board had greater powers than Ministers and he wanted to know what the annual cost would be. The board would have powers greater than those given any other industry. The primary producer should have an opportunity of closely examining the proposals in the Bill. It seemed as if the producers were not going to get the assistance they were calling for, hut would be faced with restrictions that would hamper tlieir operations. He sought an assurance that the Bill would not be sledge-hammered through the House; if that were not given, lie wou’d feel bound to oppose the first reading.

Mr Forbes said it liad never been the practice of the Government to slog Bills through the House. The Bill was an urgent one and the whole purpose was to do something to improve the marketing of New Zealand produce. FOR BETTER MARKETING. Mr Foa-bes said it had been stated that New Zealand was the “world’s worst marketer.” The Bill provided that control of marketing regulations would be made by the Governor-Gen-eral-in-Council. He hoped that would be done this year, as there was an urgent necessity for taking steps to deal with the position. The Bill was brought down to improve marketing conditions at Home and to seek new markets. A full opportunity would be given to debate the Bill next week. The Bill gave effect, with certain modifications, to the recommendations of the Dairy Commission.

Mr J. A. Lee said that for six years the industry had been in dire straits and now the Government was going to teach it to swim. The Bill was brought down because the caucus had said the Government must do something. He said the Minister for Finance was the man who had done more than anyone else to submarine the orderly marketing of New Zealand’s produce. Mr C. A. Wilkinson said the whole question of dairy farming hinged upon finance. Most dairy farmers had bought their land at too great a price. Reorganisation of the industry was a secondary matter to saving the dairy farmer financially. Mr AV. J. Poison hoped that the dairying industry would not be turned into a political chopping block. Only about 7 per cent, of the dairy farmers were making the industry pay. However, it looked to him like locking the stable door after the horse had gone out. He was sure the proposals for reorganising the industry were of great value, but he contended that financial assistance should be given the dairy farmer. It could be done if the Government had the enterprise to tackle the position. He had received messages from all parts of the Dominion urging delay in passing legislation until those concerned had seen the proposals. Mr R. Semple said that, if a marketing proposal was the only thing the Government had to offer the dairy fanner, they -would find it no solution of the problem. Mr A. J. Stallworthy said he wished to draw attention to the discrepancy in the attitude of the Prime Minister between the dairy industry and the wool farmer. He said the wool farmer was asked to contribute 4d a bale, but the dairy industry was conscripted and it was proposed to set up a board that would supersede every other board in the Dominion.

Mr H. G. Dickie said he hoped the Bill would not be unduly rushed, as a meeting of the industry could ho held fairly quickly. There was no great urgency for marketing if the proposals inf the Commission were to be followed. Mr P. Eraser said the whole trouble with the dairy industry was that the Dairy Control Board was hamstrung. How could marketing get over a quota? What other markets were there ? What could a new board do that the other board had not done? THE MINISTER’S REPLY.

Hon. C. E. Macmillan, Minister of Agriculture, explaining the measure, said it had been felt that somebody with greater powers than the Dairy Control Board and the other producers’ boards was absolutely necessary. It was almost impossible for private persons to make connections outside the Empire, and trade had to be conducted, to be successful, by way of treaty and negotiation between Governments. Supreme authority was needed to send produce where a market was available, because the individual farmer could not afford to take a risk. A body that could make contracts with other Gov-

ernments was necessary. It was necessary to coordinate the Dairy Control Board and Meat Producers’ Board, and the position resolved itself into the establishment of a Marketing Commission.

The constitution of the Dairy Board, the Minister continued, was altered; in the past it had l>een a compromise. The dairy farmer felt he had never had a fair run, but the Bill would "ive it, to him. Power was given to control the local market, while block dairy instruction was also provided. On the new board three representatives ”oiud he elected by the dairy companies, and onq by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, while three would be appointed by the Government. The measure did not give all the relief asked for, but it gave the dairy farmer a chance to get out of his immediate difficulties. Mr W. Nash said there wr s something to be said for control and coordination, but there was iro proposal to give the dairy farmer some return for his labour.

Mr D. McDougall asked if, alter the first reading was carried, the danfarmer would be given an opportunity of examining the Bill, lie was sure there would he some objections. Mr H. T. Armstrong said he did not think the substitution of one board for another would get the farmer out of his difficulties.

Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said it was true some parts of New Zealand were opposed to the Bill and others in favour. He had received many telegrams supporting it. What Parliament had to decide was whether the provisions of the Bill were in the interests of the country and the industry or not. It was not the intention of the Government tn hurry the thing through, as a measure of that importance warranted considerable consideration by those concerned; but a crisis had been reached and they had to decide what was best from the immediate point of view, but they must not forget the long view. . Mr Macmillan, in further reply, said he had received a message from an organisation representing 12,000 suppliers favouring the proposals. After three hours’ discussion the Governor-General’s message was received and the Bill read the first time.