FURTHER EXAMINATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27157, 12 August 1949, Page 7

FURTHER EXAMINATION

Sheep Industry Report Many Points Discussed PA WELLINGTON. Aug. 11. The problems of the sheep-farming industry were further debated in the House of Representatives to-night when discussion of the report of the Royal Commission on the Sheep-farm-ing Industry was continued. The Minister of Education, Mr McCombs, defended the Government’s policy in the provision of educational facilities for country children. Mr S. W. Smith (Oppn., Hobson) said that if a sheep industry board were to be established it must be set up by the sheep farmers themselves without Government interference. The proposed marginal land board might achieve something, but' it could not hope to achieve as much as a sympathetic and knowledgeable Government. Mr Smith said there should be closer co-operation between local bodies and the Public Works Department, which was the best agency for river control and allied work. The sheep farmers’ read problems arose from the fact that the Government had required them to sell at less than world parity prices while New Zealand’s imports were bought at full parity prices. The Minister of Lands, Mr Skinner, said that the proposed marginal lands board paralleled very closely the existing Land Settlement Board, and it might be that by widening representation of the Land Settlement Board the commission’s recommendation could be met. The Minister said he did not agree that catchment boards should be abolished, but 1 here might be closer definition of the duties of such boards. Mr J. J. Maher (Oppn., Otaki) said that the light manner in which Government speakers had dealt with such an important report was an indictment of the people for returning them to Parliament. It bode ill for the country that a party which had been 14 years in power should have only three members who knew anything about farming, which was the mainstay of the country’s prosperity. Mr Maher said that production would be stepped up much more when the farmers had a Government in which they could have confidence. It was impertinent for Government members to talk about lending farmers money at 3 per cent, for rural housing. If they were given some of their own money, lying idle in London or locally, then they would build. Mr F. Langstone (Ind. Lab., Roskill) said there was a tremendous amount of soil erosion going on in the country which would have to be prevented if we were to carry out our trust to posterity. was unfortunate that the Government had followed the lead of the Stabilisation Commission and lifted the subsidy on fertiliser, and thus created a problem not only for the Government itself, but also for the country. Farmers had justifiable complaints so far as the fertiliser subsidy was concerned, and marginal land farmers were entitled to all the assistance they could get and to cheaper fertiliser.

Mr W. A. Bodkin (Oppn., Central Otago) said the present policy of divided control under ' catchment boards must mean that valuable machinery would lie rusting for months of the year. Effective river control must be in the hands of the Public Works Department. Would the State spend £11.000,000, as was proposed, on the Roxburgh Gorge hydro scheme and then hand flood protection work on the Clutha River over to catchment boards? It was unthinkable. The Public Works Department must undertake that task; and any catchment board would only be an embarrassment to it. Hydro-electric power was so important to New Zealand that eventually every -major river must be harnessed, and control of the rivers from source to mouth must be vested in the State. That, in effect, was what the commission in its wisdom recommended.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment.