CLAIM DISPUTED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26245, 31 August 1946, Page 8

CLAIM DISPUTED

MINISTER IN REPLY A COMPENSATORY PAYMENT (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON. Aug. 30. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Parry, said it was significant that no city members of the Opposition had spoken on the - question. No city member had claimed that these moneys belonged to the farming community. Mr J- T. Watts (Oppn., Riccarton): I will claim it, and I am a city member. Mr Parry said that the claim by Opposition representatives that the moneys belonged to the farmer alone meant that they were asking the city people to carry the whole burden of the subsidies. The Opposition could not incriminate the Government without incriminating the leaders of the primary industries who had a sense of honesty and agreed with what had been done.

Mr J. N. Massey (Oppn., Franklin) said that the farmers believed that what they produced belonged to them. Unfortunately, the Government held that it belonged to the State as a whole. At present there was approximately £5,000,000 in the dairy account and £12,500,000 in the meat account. Did that money belong to the people who had produced it, or did it not? There was no answer from the Government on that point. The money would' no doubt be paid into the Consolidated Fund because that was the philosophy of the Government. Maintaining, a Balance

The Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, said he had nothing to add to what he had said previously about the lump payments made by the British Gw•emment for the purpose of remedying the admitted disparity between the export price levels of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. New Zealand had reserved the right to raise the question if the United Kingdom price level rose more than 10 points. Had the prices to New Zealand been lowered instead of lump payments being made, than it would have been an argument for other countries. From the beginning the United Kingdom had paid New Zealand a fair price. This year it was the full prifce asked for by the dairy and meat industry that was going to be paid out. It was a matter to be determined by agreement between the Federated Farmers and the Stabilisation Commission. Mr Sheat: What objection have you to laying the documents on the table? Mr Nash: The representatives of the industry have seen them and they are satisfied. If we could have an honest exchange of views with the Information obtained to be used fairly there would be no objection.

Dr Dalton’s Statement Doubted Continuing. Mr Nash asked if anyone suggested that the farmers should have £4,000,000 a year more than they asked for. The increased prices charged by Britain for which this sum was meant to compensate were borne by the whole country, and not by a section. If it was affirmed that the farmer was entitled to get all he could for his produce, then labour was entitled to get all it could, and if everyone were bent bn that there _ would soon be chaos. He did not think Dr Hugh Dalton had made any statement of the type attributed to him by the newspaper quotation given by the member for Waikato.

Mr K. J. Holyoake (Oppn., Pahiatua), said that the whole question of the lump sum payments was surrounded by mystery and there was a disturbing lack of information. The Minister of Supply, Mr Sullivan said it was quite obvious that the OpDosition had no faith in the leaders of the farming industry: Mr W. Sullivan (Oppn., Bay of Plenty): No faith in the Government! Curtain of Silence Mr W A. Bodkin (Oppn.,. Central Otago) said he wanted to nail the Minister of Finance down to the question of why the New Zealand Government had conveyed to the United Kingdom Government that it wanted silence so far as the lump sum payments were concerned. It was a fair deduction that the ,N cv f Zealand Government wanted to withhold the information from the people of the Dominion. It seemed clear that the Government had expressly asked that certain payments should be made m category of lump sum payments. The debate was unfinished when the House adjourned.