THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 304, 21 November 1934, Page 2

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

IMPLICATIONS OF LEGISLATION. EFFECT OF BRITAIN’S NEW POLICY. •WELLINGTON, Nov. 21 How British arrangements in regard to the regulation of imports of foodstuffs into tho country had brought the New Zealand Government directly into the marketing question was referred to last evening by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, when defending the proposals contained in the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Act for the establishment of an Executive Commission of Agriculture and the reconstitution of the Dairy Produce Board. Mr Forbes said he disliked interference, but unpalatable though it might be, the most unpalatable thing of all was to find that the markets would not buy our produce at a payable price. In an interview, Mr Forbes said that, apart from financial provisions for improvements in dairies and dairy factories, tho Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Act provided for a reconstruction and extension of powers of the New Zealand Dairy Produce Board, and for the setting up of a co-ordinating Commission to the various Produce Boards, and the Government on marketing policy, particularlv in relation to regulation and to combined action in' existing ana fresh markets. In view of the agricultural marketing legislation in Great Britain, the New Zealand Government had been brought directly into the marketing question, because of the governmental arrangements in regard to the regulation of imports of foodstuffs into Britain. Active negotiations were at present in progress in London with regard to the regulation and conditions of niarketing of meat in Great Britain, while in August, 1935, the Ottawa arrangements regarding dairy produce would terminate. Moreover, there was a possibility of the principle of regulation being applied to fruit. Even now, there were certain tacit agreements. BRITISH LEGISLATION. The Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Act was designed to enable New Zealand to deal with the consequences of the British Agricultural Marketing Act. It provides for a co-ordinating Commission in Agriculture, designed to give that co-ordination which was not only desirable from our point of view, but which the British Act had forced upon us. It also gave the New Zealand Dairy Board the necessary powers to meet the situation which might arise, or had arisen, because of the British Marketing Act.

The development of the legislation in New Zealand following the Dairy Commission’s report was, in some respects, parallel to the order of development in Great Britain. It was the Lane Fox report on the pig industry which not only led to the organisation of that industry but precipitated the legislation dealing with all farm produce. In the organisation of agriculture, which the circumstances of the times demanded, there was, to quote from Sir Daniel Hall, adviser to the British Ministry of Agriculture, “need for a selected advisory body behind the administration to assist in formulating the guiding principles of the nation’s agricultural policy and to advise upon their application.” UNITY OF FARMING INDUSTRY.

“The Government,” said Mr Forbes, '‘recognise the essential unity of our farming industry and desire to avoid sectional and unbalanced development. Nevertheless, such development will be controlled mainly by marketing conditions, particularly those in Great Britain.

“The whole organisation and the functioning of the commission are designed to provide a focusing point for all information from the marketing and prducing points of view, so that the Government, in its actions, particularly in regard to trade agreements, may have available the fullest knowledge and foresight. “At the present time, the existing organisation of the various sections of the fanning industry has certain deficiencies in these directions, and the Government have been somewhat handicapped when called upon to''deal with important negotiations. Moreover, the Royal Commission, after investigating the problems of the dairy industry, was emphatic that some organisation was necessary to effect more unity in the marketing of our farm produce. Without such’co-ordination,' maladjustments and hardships are very likely to occur. The Government do not want, through the commission, to become too involved in industry, but I would emphasise that the situation is thrust upon us by the action of the countries in which we market our produce. WORK FOR PRODUCE BOARDS. “Except under special circumstances and after full consultation between the boards, the commission and the Government, the details of production and marketing are left to the produce boards themselves, and these boards will continue to function as in the past, but with added marketing knowledge gathered by the commission and trade commissioners to be appointed to work in with the boards and the commission. The aim was that the Government’s action should be guided in the way most helpful'to industry.” Mr Forbes said, with regard to the reorganisation of the New Zealand Dairy Board, that the only real alteration from the recommendations of the Dairy Commission was that the four Government nominees recommended had been reduced to three. The Dairy Commission had laid down the type of persons to be chosen as Government nominees, and this general recommendation would be adhered to. The Government nominees would not be instructed in the manner in which they should vote or act, but, having been chosen in the manner recommended by the commission, they would be left to exercise their best judgment on all questions at issue. This was in conformity with the position of Government nominees in the past.

THE OVERSEAS MARKETS'. “There is no intention,” lie added, “of taking trade from those at present handling it, but rather to create the conditions under which trade may meet freely the situation which Ims arisen in overseas markets. Nearly all consuming countries have adopted the principle of regulated markets, and we cannot avoid the necessity of organisation to meet the new conditions, while preserving or adding to the initiative in finding markets for existing or new types of produce. “I would again point out that the occasion demands the measures pronosed by the Government. I might almost use Major Elliot’s words when introducing the Marketing Act of 1933: ‘The proposals which we bring forward are admittedly drastic, far-reaching and novel, and our only justification for them is that they are not more drastic than the occasion demands, and that they are not more novel than the circumstances which confront us, and that they are not more far-reaching than the emergency which lias brought them into being.”

“A THOROUGH COMMISSION.” “In the Act the Govermnent has

conceived a clear and progressive plan of action based on a careful sifting of the situation by one of. the most thorough commissions that has ever attempted to sift out a confused agricultural problem. It was urgent' and fundamental that the organisation of tho dairy and other sections of the farming industry should be strengthened as indicated in the Act so that we may co-operate to tackle the immediate problems and ensure the brighter future which is ours if we consolidate our forces and face the immediate hurdles.

“1 will admit,” concluded Mr Forbes, “that the Bill means interference. The farmer dislikes interference ; nevertheless •96 per cent, of the stolid British farmers voted in favour of the pig marketing and milk marketing schemes. I dislike interference; but, unpalatable though it may be, the most unpalatable thing of all is to find that the markets will not buy our produce at a payable price. I do not want interference, but the first thing is to get a living for our farmers. It is more important that our agricultural industries should thrive than that we should provide extensive unemployment schemes of a palliative nature.” CRITICISM LEVELLED. Per Press Association. ASHBURTON, Nov. 21. A condemnation of w'liat he termed the Government’s failure to give real assistance to the dairy industry in the recent legislation following the presentation of the Dairy Commission’s report was expressed by Mr H. T. Armstrong, president of the Labour Party, in his opening address of a Canterbury tour last night. The Commission’s recommendations, ’he said, tended only to place the farmers under a greater burden of debt.

He deplored the Government’s procrastination in regard to any true assistance, which was-wanted now, not in a year’s time.