AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 288, 2 November 1934, Page 11

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

AGRICULTURAL POWERS BILL

MARGIN OF EIGHT VOTES

Tlie Opposition amendment to the second reading- of the Agricultural (Emergency Powers) Bill tested the House of Representatives yesterday on this important measure, the amendment being rejected by 37 votes to 29. Urgency had been accorded this stage of the Bill and the second reading- was carried by 34 votes to 24. The House did not rise till 1.55 a.m.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 1. The second reading debate on the Agricultural (Emergency Powers) Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives this afternoon, urgency being accorded the passing of that portion of it.

Mr A. J. Stallworthy suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should be sent Home to negotiate with the authorities there.

Mr J. Hargest said it was difficult to see the reason for opposition to the Bill. II a guaranteed price was given to the dairy farmer, production would be stimulated and the trouble with already glutted markets would be aggravated. He agreed it was necessary that there should he some co-ordination to study marketing problems. He believed that had something been done a year ago to restrict exports to Britain the net income to-day would have been greater. He thought something in the nature of a quota was inevitable unless agreements could be reached. He thought the dairy farmer should realise that any expenditure incurred under the present Bill to assist him must place a burden on the general taxpayer and he should, therefore, submit to some direction from the Government and those elected to the respective boards. It was disappointing to find him, when efforts were being made to assist him, trying to call the tune. Mr C. H. Clin kard said the Government had been doing its nest to keep export producers in operation, and for the country to lessen production without a reduction by other countries would be suicidal. They must keep up production and control marketing. He considered that the supremo council should not be divorced from Governmental control and that a Minister of the Crown should be a member of it.

Mr A. Stuart said there were many other people in financial difficulties. Many business people in the cities were just as much in difficulties as the dairy farmer. The position of all sections of the community had to be considered. From the speeches made in the House one would think the industry was in most deperate circumstances and that the country was about to crash, but he took a much more optimistic view. The percentage needing financial assistance was not as great as many speakers made out. Then, again, some farmers were struggling even in good times and there were some farmers being kept on the land who would be much better .If it. METHODS OF CO-OPERATION. Mr ML J. Broadfoot said the report made one wonder whether New Zealand was co-operative or otherwise. He thought the Danish people had given a lead to tlie world in that matter. He felt that in New Zealand co-opera-tion was not working along the right lines, and that applied to other industries as well as the dairy industry. He was wondering what would be the next industry to lay its troubles at the door of the Government, and thought there would soon be so many crying children that they would have to call a halt somewhere. He did not like giving the powers provided to “.super-men,” because he did not see the “super-men” in the country. He considered that supreme power should be in the House and thought they should follow the example of Australia and appoint three Ministers to be tlie co-ordinating authority. Referring to bovine tuberculosis, Mr Broadfoot said much could be done to reduce the incidence of that disease. The United .States, since 1918, had reduced the percentage from 2.4 to 1.7. which indicated that the problem could he handled. ft had been said that a large number of animals would have to be destroyed, but the people should not he exposed to the danger of affected herds.

Mr D. MoDnugall adopted the same attitude as be did yesterday and opposed extensions of time for speakers, but he was asleep when the hell rung in Mr Broadfoot. The speaker was accorded an extension to the great amusement of the House. A division was called for on Mr M. J. Savage’s amendment opposing the second reading after nearly 12 hours’ debate. The amendment was :—-That the House refuses to give a second reading to the Bill, which fails to make provision for immediate financial assistance to tlie dairy industry. The amendment was lost bv 37 votes to 29.

THE DIVISION LIST. Tlie division list was: AGAINST THE AMENDMENT, Ansell, A. E. ,'inil, A. E. Bitchener; J. Kyle, H. S. S. Broadfoot, \V. J. McLeod, A. D. Burnett, T. 1). MeSkimining, P. Campbell, H. McL. Macmillan, (J. E. Clmkard, C. 11. Maepherson, J. A. Coates, J. G. Mas; ey, J. N. Gobbe, J. G. Massey, W. \V. Dickie, H. G. Murdoch, A. .J. field, tV. H. Nash, J. A. torbes, G. \V. Ngata, Sir Apiratia Hamilton, A. Reid, D. S. Hargest, J. ■ Smith, S. G. Harris, A. Stewart, \V. D. Hawke, R. W. Stuart, A. Healy, E. E. Sykes, G. R. Henarc, T. To Tomo, Taite Holland, H. Young, J. A. Holyoake, J. K. FOR THE AMENDMENT. Armstrong, H. T. Munro, J. W. Atmore, 11. O’Brien, J. Barnard, \V. E. Parry, \V. E. Carr, C. Poison, W. -J. Chapman, G. H. Richards, A. S. Coleman, D. W. Samuel, A. M. Fraser, P. Savage, M. J. Jones, F. Semple, It. Jordan, W. J. Stallworthy, A. J. Langstone, F. Tirikatene,- E. T. Lee, J. A. Veitch, \V. A. McCombs. Mrs E. R. Webb, P. C. McDougall. D. Wilkinson, Q. A. MeKecn. R. Wright, R. A. Mason, 11. G. 11. PAIRS.

Against tlie amendment.—Conol ly, Ransom, Bodkin, Endean, Linklatev. I’ 1 or the amendment.—AY. Nash, Howard, Schramm, Sullivan, Rushworth. CHARGE OF INCONSISTENCY. Mr W. E. Parry continued the debate and said a Commission was not needed to tell the country that 50 per cent, of the dairy farmers could not meet their commitments. He claimed that the Labour Party for years had been showing tire Government where the country was heading. He asked if the Government was sincere in the statement that the powers contained in the Bill were latent, and why in that case did they want the Bill f Mr

Parry charged the Government with inconsistency. He said that, when it raised the exchange, wealthy woolgrowers, some of whom had held back wool for three or four years, had received the benefit of that increase as well as the small man; yet the Government would not subsidise or guarantee a price to the dairy farmer, stating that the. benefit would be received by some who did' not need it as well as those who did. PROPOSED COUNCIL DEFENDED. The Prime Minister (lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes) thought that much of the opposition to the Bill was due to a misunderstanding of what was proposed. He said it was not possible for the Government to provide the large subsidies that would be required, as that would react in other ways. The criticism levelled against tlie Government was that it had failed to do the right thing at once. Some people had the idea that the supreme council would be a sort of a Mussolini and take charge of everything, hut it would be nothing of tlie sort. It would explore new markets and would work in close co-operation with the boards. It had also been said that it had great powers, but they could he used only in a case of emergency. M'liat was proposed was the linking lip of the activities of all the produce boards. If they then had to meet regulation, they could do so in an organised fashion.

Mr Forbes said New Zealand was obliged to put the machinery dealing with the export of produce in order. He thought that the individual boards, within Emits, had done good work, but I there had been limits. Under the new system, when the Government had spent money and had secured a new market, it could be assured that tlie market would be taken advantage of. Marketing conditions now had changed. Marketing now was a matter for negotiation between Governments and not between organisations, and the Government had to take a more active interest to equip itself with machinery to enable it to come to the best decision. Adverse trade balances were also taking a prominent part in trade today and New Zealand had to take cognisance of that and act in the same way as other Governments. Payment of subsidies would only throw a greater burden on tlie taxpayer. LOW PRICE OF BUTTER. The low price recently obtained for New Zealand butter, Mr Forbes said he had been informed, was due to the fact that the butter had been lying in store for a long time. When it, was opened up it was apparent that it was stale butter. He was told, when in Glasgow, that the merchants perhaps received two or three consignments of good butter and then perhaps received some that was obviously stale. There was room for a great improvement at the London end. The present Act was a genuine effort to improve the position and the Government would back it up if given power by Parliament. Mr J. A. Lee said that if anything was to be done for tlie dairy industry it had to bo done by Parliament itself and not delegated to a board which might be ap excuse for doing nothing. Pie said that a guarantede price would benefit not only the farmer, hut would also give a fillip to business, as the money paid in the country would be spent in the country. “CANNOT REFUSE TO ACT.” Mr J. A. Nash asked what was tlie alternative to the Bill before the House. Were thyep repared to leave the various independent boards as they were and not have them co-or-dinated? In the face of the. Commission’s report, they could not refuse to act. There was nothing in the Bill which could lessen the rights of Parliament. Referring to the margin in price between New Zealand and Danish butter, Mr Nash said that Danish butter was sold as fresh, whereas New Zealand was frozen outside, was often streaky and had to be cut away. What was wanted was not a subsidy hut better quality and better marketing conditions. If tlie proposed executive of three was objected to, he suggested that the Minister might be made chairman, with a deputy-chair-man. The Minister would remain answerable to Parliament. The Bill ns framed, he contended, should go through. Mr R. A. Wright asked what was the use of increasing production if they colud not consume it. New Zealand’s problem was to find now markets.

Mr H. S. S. Kyle said he believed that a large part of the Commission’s report was panicky and would do harm in tlie Old Country. He contended that New Zealand had'far less tuberculosis in its herds than England and less than in any other country. Tlie Commission’s figures were exaggerated and, if exaggerated in that respect, wore probably exaggerated in others. He hoped the Government would not rush headlong into action without consulting the industry If, as the Prime Minister had said, the Imperial Government would deal only with the New Zealand Government, what was the use of sotting up another board that would not be recognised by another Government? He suggested that, instead of having a supreme council of three, the council should consist of the chairmen of the various produce boards, presided over by a Minister.

Mr F. Lye explained that lie had been unable to vote on Mr Savage’s amendment, as he had been engaged on a Parliamentary committee, but he would have voted against the amendment. He asked for the reason in tlie disparity in tlie price of New Zealand and Danish butter, and wondered if, during the last ten years, anything had been done to cultivate the goocL will of those who marketed New Zealand produce. He thought that tlie policy of the old board was irritating and at times mischievous, and that the new board would benefit from the mistakes of the old hoard.

VALUE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Mr H. M. Campbell criticised the number of boards that were being set up and said early settlers had made progress by their own push. From the first shipment of frozen produce, New Zealand had progressed steadily by private enterprise. He thought greater progress would he made by private enterprise than by boards. Depressions occurred periodically but the country had recovered from them, and lie be-

lieved the country would recover from the present one, though it was taking longer than the others. A prosperous dairy industry had been built up with local merchants in conjunction with Too ley Street, and he believed that had that arrangement been allowed to continue the country would not have been in the mess it was. Mr Campbell contended that tlie rates for tlie upkeep of roads should be removed from the farmer and that cost placed on petrol. That would give considerable relief. They should also endeavour to get ‘on side” with Toolcy vStreet.

Mr A. J. Murdoch believed that 90 per cent of the dairies were in good order and condition, while the dairy factories had to comply with rules laid down bv the Department of Agriculture. The efficiency of the management ol farms had improved year by year. He advocated that the inspectors to lie appointed should lie under tie Agricultural Department rather than the Dairy Bo'ard. After Hon. C. E. Macmillan had replied, the second reading was carried by 30 votes to 24, and the House rose at 1.55 a.m.