DRASTIC POWERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23365, 3 December 1937, Page 10

DRASTIC POWERS

THE STATE AS TRADER INVASION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL OPPOSITION LEADER’S CRITICISM (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON. Dec. 2. “ The Labour Government is seen in its true light in this legislation in assuming drastic and dictatorial oowers,” said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr A. Hamilton) during the second reading debate on the Primary Products Marketing Amendment Bill in the House of Reoresentatives to-night The Government, he added, had not a sufficient appreciation of the present system. “The Minister of Marketing, Mr Nash, says he is setting out to establish orderly marketing,” Mr Hamilton said. “Orderly marketing was established long before the Minister came on the scene. The Minister paid a tribute to the marketing of meat, but the marketing of that commodity' has proved highly successful without the necessity for the expensive machinery that the Minister proposes to establish under this Bill. The Meat Board is a simple organisation which is run very efficiently and is paid for by the oroducers themselves.” Mr Hamilton said that, in view of the fact that copies of the Bill had only been available to members, that morning, anything but a cursory analysis Of the legislation was impossible. “We are opposed to the powers in this Bill.” Mr Hamilton said, “for it contains powers that it is not wise for any Government to assume." ...... The Government claimed that it was setting out to help the producer, Mr Hamilton said. The farmer was interested in keeping down costs. The primary producer knew he had to accept world prices, and realised that rising internal costs were his greatest bugbear. Nothing was more detrimental to his interests. Empty Shelves in Dominion

“The present system has one advantage,” Mr Hamilton said. “We have never had empty shelves in New Zealand, for there has been an abundance of foodstuffs. The Minister is establishing a standard that may leave us with empty shelves.” Mr T. D. Burnett (Opposition, Temuka): Hear hear. Mr Hamilton: The Minister is setting so high a standard that people may be attracted away from the production of foodstuffs. If the producers are regimented and hedged about with too many regulations we may find ourselves with a shortage of food. The Government, Mr Hamilton added, was practically taking power to change the present system of distribution. Those powers would disturb many people and might mean the ruination of others. The Government was setting out to eliminate the distributors or those whom it described as the middlemen. If the Government set out to pay standard rates from producer to consumer the service would not be as cheap as it was to-day and the net result would be an increase in the cost of living. The Local Market “ Members of the Government have made a great song about the value of the local market,” Mr Hamilton continued. “ The local market has never been worth less to farmers than at has since the present Government Icame into office. In Australia the producers are given a price higher than the world’s markets. In this country the price has not been above that level, and might even have been below it. What has the producer received out of this wonderful marketing scheme established over a year ago?

“It is a strange thing that when the Government is dealing with the farmers,’’ Mr Hamilton continued, “it will not pay goodwill but in this case, when it deals with a business man, it pays £20.000 in goodwill. The Government may be generous to the few, but it is ruthless with the many. We would never have heard the end of it if we had done this when we were in office. The Government has given this firm £20,000 in goodwill, but will not allow a transfer of land with £IOOO goodwill involved.” Trading Right Questioned Mr Hamilton claimed that this new legislation would undoubtedly add to the already great army of Government inspectors The Bill was intended to take away the legitimate business of the people, he said when replying to the repeated assertions of Mr Nash and Mr Sullivan that the same power had been taken in the Board of Trade Act. “ It is not the Government’s function to take all these powers,” Mi Hamilton declared “ Other Labour Governments have taken them, and they have always proved more expensive than the present system we pnjoy One clause grants nowei to take an unlimited overdraft from the Reserve Bank This may be a wry pleasant thing for the social credit followers, but it is not the function of the Reserve Bank No private trader will have a chance to compete against this” Power to Varv Prices Mr Hamilton strongly denounced the clause in the Bill giving the Government power to vary all the fixed prices. The Minister had not made the clause very clear in his explanation Mr Hamilton said but the clause apparently gave the Government the right to change the guaranteed price up or down as it liked. The Minister: Not down Mr Hamilton: The Government can put it up or down It can put it forward or make it retrospective, but it cannot put it down with a retrospective application. “Here, the Government is taking power to alter the guaranteed price as it likes,” Mr Hamilton said “ That is a pup the farmer has been sold. The farmer was promised stability with the guaranteed price Now that the Government has taker the power to put it up or down as it likes all the argument about stability goes by the board. What a change of front the Government has made! I hope that some farmers are listening in. They will realise now where they are being taken to. They have been taken for a walk.” RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE SIR ALFRED RANSOM’S FORECAST (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Dec. 2. “ I am sure the people of New Zealand will resent this Bill as an unwarranted interference with the rights of the individual,” said Sir Alfred Ransom (Opposition, Pahiatua) when speaking in the second reading debate on the Primary Products Marketing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives tonight, Sir Alfred quoted the Minister of Marketing (Mr W. Nash) as having stated that the object of the Bill was to eliminate the waste between the producer and the consumer. The assumption was that all the middle men who had handled dairy produce in the past were to be scrapped and that the State would control everything, even to being the retailer of produce. Past history showed, however, that individuals usually did better in business than the Crown. He thought history would repeat itself in the present instance, and that the Governments latest experiment would prove entirely disastrous. “The Minister said the Government wishes to avoid the chaos that has existed in the past, bir Alfred said, “but I think that is a reflection on the co-operative dairy factories that have carried out marketing in the past and have raised the standard of our dairy produce to one that is not excelled in the world. The effect of this Biß Wll j be to break down competition and we have had a good enough illuS" tration of the results of that in the recent wool sale.” . The Bill constituted a great interference with the liberties of the individual, Sir Alfred said, but it was quite consistent with the socialistic principles of the party that introduced it. Under the Bill the Government took power to control all foodstuffs, and it was reasonable to assume that before long all food and clothing would be rationed as well as being regulated in price.