PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 294, 9 November 1934, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

DEBATE ON AGRICULTURAL BILL

OPPOSITION LEADER ON AMENDMENTS.

“NO ALTERATION IN PRINCIPLE.”

Per Press Association

WELLINGTON, Nov. 9. The House of Representatives met at 10.30.

Mr H. R. G. Mason gave notice of his intention to introduce the Auckland Electric Power Board Amendment BUI. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and the Local Legislation Bill were put through the Committee stage, read the third time and passed. The Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill was considered in Committee. Hon. C. E. Macmillan (Minister of Agriculture) introduced a number of amendments, the principal of which was increasing the membership of the Agriculture Commission to four and appointing the Minister as chairman. On the short title, Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said he could not see any alteration in the principle at all. It was simply following the example of the Unemployment Board. The Minister would never occupy the chair and the deputy-chaiman would be able to wander round the country as he liked. He was not averse to reorganising the dairy industry, but he considered they should start with the man who was in difficulties. He had a number of communications, all except one being against the Bill. He hoped that the Bill, although it had apparently satisfied the Coalition Caucus, would not satisfy the House. Mr Savage said he considered all the amendments would be like plaster on a wooden leg; they would do neither good nor harm. What was wanted was financial assistance for those who could not meet their bills now. Mr Savage asked the Committee to oppose the Bill. Mr C. A Wilkinson said there was no immediate need for the present Bill, as it did not provide financial assistance for the farmer. The Bill would only load them up with further troubles. The appointment of the Minister as chairman of the Commission would have no effect,'as the other members could over-ride him. He considered the appointment of members for five years without the right of recall was monstrous. He thought the members of the Commission should not have the right to occupy any other position. Mr Wilkinson asked the Government to hold the Bill over till February, as it was too momentous to be put through on the last day of the session. If the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment he would support it. Mr W. J. Poison said it was generally agreed that reorganisation was necessary, and the Bill provided for reorganisation. He thought there was a necessity for some such reorganisation as provided in the BiJJ. It was a definite move tor co-ordination among these separate boards. The industry’s first call was for immediate relief. The Bill did not meet with the general disapproval of the men in the industry except those in the Auckland district'. The Bill, he thought, was essential to control marketing and secure better trading arrangements. Mr W. Nash thought the amendments made the position worse than the original Bill. The Commission should be subject to the control of Parliament, otherwise it became a Fascist organisation as known in other countries. The Bill was simply giving power to the Government to delegate power to another body. He opposed members being allowed to occupy other positiops, even as farmers. A member should be paid such a sum as would render him free from any other conflicting interest. Under the present clause Mr William Goodfellow, Sir William Hunt, and Mr D. Jones could be appointed to the Commission. He asked why the Minister was taking away the power of the board to control the transport of milk and cream.