FARMERS' RETURN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22412, 7 May 1936, Page 13

FARMERS' RETURN

PAYING FOE SCHEME PRICES AND WORLD MARKETS MR. COATES STATES VIEWS [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON. Wednesday Tho view that the guaranteed price under the Primary Products Marketing Bill meant nothing more nor less than a repayable advance was put forward by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition —Kaipara) during the discussion on the short title of the bill when the House was in committee to-night. The Minister of Public Works, Hon. R. Seniple, had acknowledged that fact, Mr. Coates said, and in his explanation of financial provisions under the bill the Minister of Finance, Hon. W. Nash, had confirmed it. "Wo are told that until the world price rises to a point at which the overdraft in the proposed Dairy Industry Account can bo adjusted the farmer will get nothing more than the fixed price," Mr. Coates continued. "When the overseas price is above the guarantee there will be a repayment into the account, and any balance left over can be distributed among the farmers. I repeat that the dairy farmer of New Zealand would be much better off if ho accepted the world price. The farmer has been sold the prettiest little pup ho has ever been sold in his life." Load on Wage Worker Mr. Nash: You wait until it grows up. There was the possibility that the guaranteed price might remain for some time* in excess ol the world price, Mr. Coates continued. In that event the people would have to pay. The Government was going to place a load on the wage worker of the country which no one had yet attempted to calculate. "New Zealand cannot insulate itself from the rest of the world," Mr. Coates said. "To think that Ave can is only a delusion and a mirage. Here we are, a country of 1,500,000 people, with a greater export trade per capita in primary products than countries like Great Britain and the United States have in their manufactured goods. To suggest that we can keep on exporting our farm products and vet remain unconcerned about overseas markets is just a refusal to recognise the facts. It is all humbug and nonsense." Antagonising British Farmer

Mr. Coatcs said one effect of the scheme would bo to generate antipathy on the part of the British farmer, who was invariably opposed to the subsidising of exports and the consequent encouragement of dumping. Distributing interests would also be concerned. The whole question of import levies and regulation would be raised again, and the principal sufferers in New Zealand would be the producers. Mr. Nash and other Government speakers had also spoken optimistically of negotiating bilateral trade agreements, Mr. Coates added. It should be clear to everyone that bilateral agreements within the Empire could not be negotiated overnight. When he personally had made a tentative approach in the matter to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, he had been informed that 110 question of an agreement could be considered until the whole matter had been thrashed out at an Imperial Conference.

CHANCE OF RECOVERY HOPE FOR THE FARMERS MR. RUSHWORTH'S SUPPORT [ BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Wednesday The view that the Primary Products Marketing Bill opened up an avenue of hope that the inequalities and injustices of the last 30 years might be corrected was expressed by Mr. H. M. Rushworth (Country—Bay of Islands) when supporting the bill in the debate last night. He said many people were desirous that the dairy farmers and others should be placed in a position where they would recover their financial losses, and unless something of the nature provided for in the bill were adopted there was no possibility of their getting out of debt. Through the operations of the bill, said Mr. Rushworth, the dairy farmer might be able to pay adequate wages for his labour and attract people from cities, but the speaker did not want that to happen at the expense of any other section of the community. Mr. Ruslnvorth declared that that section of the people entrusted with the distribution of the produce had failed, and the producer had tried by the cooperative system to do what the business section, which had let them down, had failed to do. He said that the suppliers had their franchise returned to them under the bill. Mr. Rushworth said he would like to see a complete restoration of the sanctity of contract, which ho contended would go a long way toward restoring confidence and stability. What was the alternative to the bill? There was the Adjustment Act passed by the last Parliament, with its budgetary control, confiscation of equities and serfdom. He would rather be dead than live under those conditions. The alternative was more dreadful than that of the bad things alleged to be in the bill before the House.