Our Member in Parliament

Northland Age, Volume 7, Issue 12, 17 December 1937, Page 3

Our Member in Parliament

Primary Products Marketing Bill

Second Reading Debate

Speaking at the second reading of the Primary Products Marketing Amendment Bill, our member, Mr. H. M. Kushworth, had the following to say in Parliament : Co-operative Marketing It is claimed that this Bill is necescary and desirable in order to bring about the orderly marketing of some kinds of primary produce. Insofar as it does that, 1 think the great bulk of the producers of those commodities would approve of the principle. It is not a new idea. For over 20 years in this Dominion, sections of the community have been seeking to establish co-operative marketing schemes and the principal objections to these schemes have always, of course, come from the business community. Ihe member for Egmont has voiced their arguments very well, and I would like to say that he is a very fine specimen indeed of our business community ; but I would like to call his attention to the following verse from the Apocrypha, “Like as a knife sticketh between the corners of stones, so does sin lurk between buying and selling.” But this idea of co-operative marketing is not confined to New Zealand, it is found all over the world. The reason for that is that the distributive machinery of our social order has broken down. There is one section of the community that is entrusted with the distribution of the products of our industry. The business men constitute that section, and they have let us down. It is the distributive side of our economic mechanism that is definitely at fault. I think, personally, that the business men are not quite so much to blame as is commonly supposed, for I think it is demonstrable that the principal tool the business men use has broken in their hands, and they do not know it. But that does not get away from the fact that they have let us down, and that the distributive side of our economic machine is definitely at fault, the world over. The result is that we have all these schemes for co-operative marketing. The producers are everywhere seeking to get direct to the consumers. Trusts and Combines It is not confined to the primary producers. We find in almost every walk of life the formation of trusts and combines. I suppose that the outstanding example of the attempt to eliminate the middle man as far as possible is the formation of that gigantic octopus, the American Meat Trust. There we have the thing carried to its logical conclusion, the middleman havng been eliminated to such an extent that there is only the one distributing organisation operating. But with the formation of a single institution handling produce from the producer to the consumer, we have no guarantee that the producers will be protected. Is there any evidence that a Government would necessarily be more just than a meat trust ? If a Government were formed of men of varying shades of opinion, I suppose that it might be ‘ claimed, theoretically, that that would result ; but when we have powerful organised interests bringing pressure to bear on Governments, where we have commercial and financial interests on one side and powerful organised labour on the other, it is probable that a Government that is subject to pressure of that description will always lean away from the less powerful and the less organised. Middlemen, generally, do render service. I think that the profiteering that is complained of is rather exaggerated. I know that when investigations have been made under Board of Trade Acts here and in other countries where profiteering has been alleged, it is very seldom indeed that the cases has been upheld. Almost always examination will show that the charges made are quite reasonable for the services rendered. Profiteering is very seldom brought home as a social crime. I do not think that it operates to anything like the extent that some members have suggested in the course of this debate. I think that if every possible waste were removed from the lines of distribution the saving would be comparatively negligible. Taking the thing as a whole, savings would be effected, but I think that they would

be very small indeed in proportion to the whole. I think that if we postulate something else, there may be a very strong argument about the regulation suggested here ; that is, if industries do in fact generate costs faster than they generate purchasing power, then some kind of regulation is inevitable, because one section of the community w r ill simply batten on another section in the effort to recover its costs. The stronger and better organised section will stand a better chance of recovering its costs at the expense of the other section* engaged in the same line of business. If the Government takes over this marketing, the problem ultimately will arise, I suggest, as to whether it should not take over the producing as well. That point has already been raised. I think the argument will develop in that direction, for the simple reason that, without any wish to do so, the Government operating these measures will be compelled by the very nature of things to squeeze the producer. The squeezer will have to be operating somewhere if the postulate I have suggested, is accepted. But I do not wish to pursue that further. Clauses in Bill The Bill as a whole is framed to provide for more orderly marketing. But there are other clauses in the Bill which are not so innocent as they appear at first sight, and it is to those other clauses 'which I wish to direct attention. There are several which require very careful consideration and it seems to me—l do not know whether I am dealing with this matter in a suspicious spirit or not, but I advance it in all seriousness to the House—that in one clause at least the Minister has drawn a very highpowTered herring across the scent and that the whole House is in pursuit of this highly spiced herring, whilst the Minister is sitting there with the proceeds of a burglary in his pocket ; I do not mean burglary in the ordinary sense, but political burglary. The Deputy Speaker : I do not think the hon. gentleman should use that language. Interest to Reserve Bank Mr. Rushworth : I am sorry if it is unparliamentary, and I withdraw the expression. I suggest to the Minister that there is one provision that should not be in the Bill at all. I suggest that the paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2) of clause 11 should be included in the Reserve Bank legislation if the Reserve Bank is to be authorised to charge interest. In this paragraph the Minister seeks authority to pay interest to the Reserve Bank, and reads : “Any interest payable to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand on any overdraft of the said account.” When the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and the Amendment Bill were under consideration by the House, the Minister’s attention w r as directed on several occasions to the fact that no provision was made for the payment of interest to the Reserve Bank on borrowing by the Gov-

eminent. . I think the Minister was wise to have left that out of those particular Bills. But he is putting the provision in this Bill. He has skilfully taken advantage of the fact that honourable gentlemen’s attentions are directed to the co-operative marketing idea to get this amendment to the Reserve Bank Act on to the Statute Book by a side wind. If the Minister were to make provision for paying the Reserve Bank for the services that it renders in the way of book entries, and so forth, that would be a different matter, and would receive my cordial support, but when the Minister asks for interest to be paid then another consideration arises, and one says, “What for ? What is the Reserve Bank providing ? Is it not simply providing clerical work ? Is there anything more that the Reserve Bank is providing ?” If the Minister w’ere to insert a clause nroviding that the Reserve Bank should be paid for the clerical work it is doing, well and good, but that is not being done. I think that when the committee stage of the Bill is reached some more attention will have to be given to the provision I have referred to. Farmers Not Getting Square Deal I only wish to say in conclusion that generally speaking, the producers of foodstuff all over the world are getting a poor spin. The farmers producing foodstuffs in this Dominion are not getting a square deal now. They are being treated as something separate, something different from the other sections of the community. The wage-earners are getting their wages on a certain basis, while the farmers are getting theirs on a totally different basis, and I suggest, not a fair basis. Honourable members of the Opposition have stated that the farmers under the provisions of this Bill are to be prevented from controlling their own produce. That is perfectly true. The answer from the Government side has been, well, they never have had that control, but I suggest that is no justification for continuing a bad arrangement. For over thirty years the primary producers of this country have been struggling to obtain a fair deal. Their hopes have been raised time and again. They have supported political parties time and again, and in the words of the leader of the Opposition they have been sold a pup If they cannot get a square deal through this institution they will have to use the weapons of organised labour and go on strike. Mr. Smith: Stay-in or stay-out ? Mr. Rushworth : Whichever the honourable gentleman prefers. If the producers of food were to go on strike what would hopper, to the rest of the commur.it T ? It is time Parliament in this and other ceui.-ries realised that the food producers should be given a fair deal in rhe interests of the producers partieular’y and •dti mately of the w’hole con n.unity generally.