EMERGENCY BILL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 287, 1 November 1934, Page 9

EMERGENCY BILL

POWERS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION. KEEN DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 31. The second reading debate on the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill was resumed in the House of Itepresentatives this afternoon. Mr C. A. Wilkinson said the Bill put extra burdens on the industry, which was a mistake. Money was also to be taken from the Public I Works Fund for the development of j industry, and that would be an t addition to the country’s debt. What factories were to be improved and in what way was the money to be spent in improving dairies? he asked. The proposals in the Bill would never save the farmer, who should be rehabilitated financially first, and then improvements could be considered. He opposed an adjournment of the House till the problem was dealt with. He contended there should be no debt in the land if farmers were to compete with other countries. He considered the Government would make a fatal mistake if it went ahead with the proposal to give such tremendous powers to three men. Mr D. MacDongall objected to an extension of time being granted Mr Wilkinson when the latter’s time was 11I>. Mr Wilkinson said he would do the same to ail speakers except Ministers and the Leader and deputy-Leader of the Opposition, as lie objected to a waste of time. liev. C. Carr said it was credit the farmers needed and the banks could create that. The Bill set up a dictatorship. He considered that members of the House were quite capable of hearing evidence and making recommendations to the Government; there was no need for Royal Commissions. He also contended that the country should create its own credit and not go cap in hand to outside countries. Mr A. D. McLeod said the dairy industry had been built up by co-opera-tive effort and that co-operation should not be destroyed. Outside the dairy ■ factories, however, that -co-operation had ceased to exist. He criticised the actions of Mr W. Goodfellow in con- ' nection with the dairy industry. The j Commission had taken too much note of bovine tuberculosis and that refer-

ence would be seized on by overseas competitors, lie said. He thought a large part of the country was in agreement with what was being said from the Labour benches in opposition to the industry being handed over to an Executive Commission. He felt there was a Ministerial responsibility in connection with the industry, but he felt that the establishment of a supreme council should not take the responsibility off the House. Mr McDougall said he was going to vote for the amendment, moved by the Leader of the Opposition, as he did not think the Bill would be any use to the dairy farmers, who should be consulted before anything affecting that industry was done. The first tiling that had to be done was to raise the consumers’ purchasing power. The trouble with the dairy farmer was the high value of land. Mr F. Langstone said lie could see nothing in the Bill or in the report that was going to give immediate relief to the dairy farmer. After Mr Langstone stressed the need for increasing the purchasing power of the people. NECESSITY FOR ACTION.

Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said he did

not tlnnk he could remember an instance when, from one end of the country to the other, a report had been received with such acclamation. The Bill closely followed the detailed recommendations of the Commission. The Commission said the position amounted to a crisis in the industry and that measures had been met with disapproval. Members had to make up their mind whether they would leave things alone or take steps to meet the position which had arisen overseas. From the North Cape to the Bluff, newspapers welcomed the Commission’s report and said that Parliament must not move from Wellington before acting on the recommendations ; yet when the Bill was introduced a different story was told.

The dairy farmer was facing a position he had never had to face before, but the welfare of the country was closely wrapped up with the welfare of the dairy industry, the Minister added. He quoted the following values of exports of dairy products in relation to the total exports pf the respective countries: Denmark, 30 per cent: Netherlands, 7 per cent; Switzerland, 5" per cent; Australia, 9 per cent; Canada, 2 per cent; Irish Free State, t> per cent; New Zealand, 45 per cent. New Zealand’s population was much lower than the other countries .mentioned, while a rise in the price internally could not assist the total price. As a result of efforts by farmers, production had not fallen to any extent. Turning to the position as it affected the United Kingdom, Mr Coates said that, from correspondence and other tilings that were said, one would imagine that New Zealand was producing her own troubles. Britain had adopted a policy not of her own desires or wishes ; she had been forced .to take action on behalf of the British people and had reorganised her policy, which Now Zealand thought ivould last for all time. Britain had been forced by the refusal of other countries to take her manufactured products at act- as she did. Now Zealand’s policy definitely was to work in with the United Kingdom, hut the industry itself was divided. Could New Zealand make progress when that cleavage existed? New Zealand had been forced to act by the British policy. It had either to attempt to organise the British market or to follow a policy of doing nothing. Could New Zealand ignore the position Britain had placed before them ? Were they to co-opcratc with Britain and other countries? POWERS OF NEW BOARD. To arrange trade agreements a coordination board was necessary, Mr

Coates continued.. It would be one man’s job to investigate markets. How could the Government complete arrangements unless it had the complete

co-operation of all exporting industries? The Government had been charged with with giving complete powers to a triumvirate, but the same had been said

when Hio Meat Board and other boards had been established, and what powers had they had ? The powers provided in the present Bill could not bo used unless the Government gave permission He thought too much fuss had been made about the Council of Agriculture, 'fhe Minister of Agriculture could not handle it, and Mr Coates thought it better to eliminate polities as far as possible other than co-operation with the Government. The council was really only an advisory board, because the powers provided were latent. The Government would not interfere with a single person unless he desired it. The Minister asked if members felt that the Co-ordination Board would interfere with a farmer’s business. The first duty of the council would be to find how far it could assist the individual boards and co-ordinate their business. New Zealand herds were less affected by tuberculosis than those in other countries, but should New Zealand be satisfied with that, or should they go

further? Mr Coates asked. He was able to say they had the purest product in the world. Members knew there was room for the equipment of those supplying factories. Many farmers were desirous of improving conditions. There were areas in New Zealand where the water supply was unsatisfactory. A farmer could not improve matters if he had not the money. The Bill provided that money could be advanced him. The Government was not going to put an extra load on the farmer hut an increased price could be looked for I if the quality was improved. FINDING THE MONEY.

Mr Coates added that the Commission recommended provision lor £3,000,000 . The Government proposed as a first instalment £500,000. One of the first things tackled would be overseas marketing. The Government could not understand the difference between the Danish and the New Zealand products. He thought it would be wrong for the Government to fix the rate of interest; he thought the rate paid should he the market rate. He did not think fixation of prices would bo for the benefit of the industry. He hoped before the legislation was passed the Government would have the cooperation of the investing public. How could they subsidise the farmers and at the same time talk of reducing mortgages and interest rates? The first thing was to get down permanent charges. The Government had decided that the farmers should be assisted in regard to a rebate on rates. The Government must stand by the industry, and would not see it go under. Mr H. G. Dickie suggested that, if they were to have a supreme council of three, the Meat and Dairy Boards should bo reduced to five members.

Mr \V. A. Veitcli characterised the Bill as hysterical legislation based on panic which was not justified. Mr H. G. R. Mason said the farmers in his district were greatly alarmed and viewed the setting up of a board which had almost dictatorial powers most seriously. Mr A. J. Stallworthy said the Government itself should use the powers which it was delegating to the board. He thought the House should know the personnel of the triumvirate before it was justified in passing legislation authorising setting up that supreme body. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at mdnight.