AFTERNOON SESSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22326, 28 July 1934, Page 14

AFTERNOON SESSION

The House met at 2.30 p.m. ■ MARKETING REGULATIONS. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr C. E. Macmillan) in a statement said the new marketing regulations arranged between the Dairv Board and the Importers Association in England lately had been under consideration, and discussion with the board, with particular reference to that portion of them dealing with f.o.b. sales. Having regard to the fact that some difference of opinion had existed regarding this question of f.p.b. sales, and that the intention was that the regulations should become operative on innd after August 1. the Dairy Industry Commission had rhade a. special inquiry into it and had advised that in its opinon the regulations should become operative as proposed. With this opinion the Government concurred. Mr Macmillan further stated that the statement recently made by the SunHerald and cabled to the New Zealand press that New Zealand had exceeded the Ottawa figures in the meat exports to the United Kingdom, particularly with respect to mutton and lamb, was erroneous. The Ottawa figures were based on imports into Great Britain for the 12 months from July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932, and so. far as New Zealand mutton, and lamb were concerned, these amounted to 195,418 tons. During the period from Julv 1, 1932, and June 30, 1933, the 12 months following the Ottawa year, the New Zealand arrivals of mutton and lamb to the United Kingdom amounted to 188,692 tons, and from July 1, 1933, to April 30, 1934, a period of 10 months, they amounted to 141,069 tons. The arrivals during the two months. May and June of. 1934, were estimated as having been not more than 42,000 tons, and possibly less, making a tonnage of lamb for the 12 months of 184,000, compared with the Ottawa year 195,418, a decrease of 114,000 tons. These figures except the estimate last-mentioned, were from the English publication Trade and Navigation, which was ' published under the authority of the Minister in charge of the Board of Trade in England. It was certainly true that with regard to certain other classes of meat our export.! had exceeded the Ottawa figures, but it was a serious misstatement to say that mutton and_ lamb exports had increased since the period on which the Ottawa figures were based. HEAVY COSTS.' Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo) asked the Minister of Transport if the Government would consider the question of preventing the heavy cost involved in overseas steamers calling at so many ports Tor cargo. , ~ Mr Coates replied that the question had alreadv been refeiTed to the Transport Co-ordination Board. The board had arranged to hold an inquiry in Wellington ' next week. The board would report to the Government. RAGWORT CONTROL. Replying to a further question by Mr Broadfoot, Mr Macmillan said the Government had in hand the preparation of arrangement? under which an improvement upon the previous conditions in connection with ragwort control and destruction would be brought about. An additional item of £SOOO would be provided on the main agricultural estimates to be used as a subsidy in a manner similar to the subsidy on fertilisers. More ample provision for clearing Crown and Native lands was also being made. MEAT EXPORT BILL • The debate on the second reading of the Meat Export Control Bill (Mr W. J. Poison) was resumed. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr C. E. Macmillan) said his promise that the Government would adopt the measure would be redeemed. Mr J. Connolly (Mid-Canterbury) said that local freezing companies must be protected. If any quota were imposed it must be at the expense of oversea concerns. „ Mr A. Stuart (Rangitikei) said he had never been refused space in freezing works. He knew of no one who had. It seemed to him that the’ Bill protected trusts more than otherwise. Provided the Government kept control of trusts and did not allow them to become too big a competition it would be in the interests of the country. _ Mr F. Langstone (Waimanno) said that big trusts did not mind one or two farmers freezing on their own account, ' but if the farmers were to organise the companies would adopt a different attitUMr W. A. Bodkin (Central 'Hago) said he thought that too much that should go to the farmer was eaten up by overhead charges. If a freer hand were given to big trusts the overhead costs would be reduced and the fanner would secure a greater return. He considered that the Government should hesitate before placing undue power in the hands of the Meat Board.

, Tlie Bill was read a second time. Mr Poison then asked that as the Government was bringing down u similar measure his Bill should he withdrawn. ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage) moved the second reading of the Electoral Amendment (Date of General Election) BillThe Speaker ruled the Bill out of order as it involved expenditure by the Crown, but an opportunity was given the House to discuss the measure. . Mr Savage said that while it mignt be possible to find reasons for extending the life of Parliament when the country was in a state of war it was extremely difficult to find reasons for extending tne life of the present Parliament. The Government had gone to the country saying that it wanted a free hand and had ptlerea nothing very definite. Certainly it ha not told the people that it intended to extend the life of Parliament- The newspapers had ridiculed the suggestion that an extension of the life oi Parliament would destroy the right of the people to govern, but even a school child would know' that that w-as the case. Tne Prime Minister had stated that from n legal point of view Parliament was justified m extending its life by 999 years, but he admitted that such extension would end ultimately in a revolution. Mr ravage admitted that Parliament was all powerful, but it should not misuse its powers. He did not claim that laxliament had violated its constitution, but he did claim that it had violated the understanding of the constitution. It members held their seats for longer than three years they were no longer representatives of the people. It was an impertinence for members to say that they were the only men who had the right to represent their constituencies. He hoped the people would give an expression of their views on the question in no uncertain manner. Mr Forbes said that Mr Savages statement contained nothing new. He defended the decision to extend the life or Parliament and reviewed the political events leading up to that action. The Government had had an unpleasant task to perform, and if it had failed it would not have been worthy of the position it occupied. He considered they had the right to extend the life of Parliament in order to give an opportunity for the remedial measures to, work out. He believed to-day that the plan was working Asked what legislation had yet to be brought down, Mr Forbes said that the Dairy Commission would probably make important recommendations which would have to be considered. The position of the meat industry also would have to be dealt with. The Government had also important problems in hand and should not be displaced. T° hold an election at the end of the year would not be in the interests of the country. The Government should be entitled to carry on. He thought the plan might work out under one year. If so, he would do his best to have an election before the end of next year. Sir W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said the position of the country was getting worse instead of better. The Government could not justify an extension of the life of Parliament on the nature of its programme. No judge would uphold the breaking of the contract between Parliament and the people. . Mr J, A. Hargest (Invercargill) said he believed an extension of the life of Parliament was necessary to give the Government’s plan a chance to work out. The debate was interrupted, and the House rose at 5.30.