DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16211, 23 August 1923, Page 7

DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL.

SELECT .COMMITTEE AMENDS BILL

STRONG HOSTILITY IN PARLIAMENT.

PLEBISCITE OF PRODUCERS

PROMISED

(Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTONS this day; The opfeuiug skirmish on the Dairy Produce Control Bill look place hi the House yesterday afternoon, when the Agricultural and* Pastoral Industries and SIoCK Committee reported the Bill with amendments.

Mr! Masters protested at the way the Bill had been held up this session. The Government way not .sincere in its intentions.

A Minister: That's the limit. Mr. Masters: The delay has been the limit. They were only four days from the end of the session, and they were asked to deal with this Bill, which was the most important legislation ever before Parliament, dealing with our most important industry. The evidence tlefore the committee was, printed and was to be made available to members, bat it had never been circulated, so they had 110 information except telegrams, many 01 them inspired. lie enumerated a long list of Bills still to on through the House, in addition to the Public Works and Education estimates and other matters. Did that list nut give an indication of the insincerity? The measure had been shelved either for the purpose of rushing it through in tho dying hours of the session, when there could be no opposition, or for the purpose of shelving it for the t.me being, in the hope that some members in another party would oppose the Bill and would be blamed for it notgoing on. They would not put the blame on him. The House could not .say the farmers wanted the Bill. Mr* Mtissey must know there was strong opposition by the farmers,, mainly on account of the compulsory clauses. Without these clauses the Bill would easily go through the House. It had been said by the secretary of the National Dairy Associatino that if producers, did not want "the measure, it would not he pushed upon them. The farmers were being spoken lor, and were not being given an opportunity of speaking. In many instances the directors of dairy factories were speaking on (heir behalf without knowing what the suppliers were thinking. The only province where the pros and cons of the question had been thrashed out was 1 aranaki, and they had ' heard both sides of tho question. Tho result was that 42 factories opposed tho Bid, and 1U were in favor of it. The promoters ot' the soeheme were originally six cheese lactones. Ho proceeded to show that only one of the six was to-day supporting the Bill. In view of these facts, could Mr. Massey say the farmers were agreed on tl§e Bill?* Twenty-five per cent, of'the total '■ producers, of buttertat of New Zealand was against the Bill. In addition, there were. 220 factories which had expressed no view. Was it fair and just to force legislation of this kind on those affected, of,whom 30 per cent, were against it? The House was against it; the press was .against 'it; and Mr. .Massey was not justified in rushing it through now. MINISTER'S STRONG RETORT. The Hon. W.xNoswurthy, Minister of Agriculture, said he had any amount of evidence in favor of the Bill. He considered Mr. one of the most dirty attacks. "(Interruption.) Mr. Wilford requested Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister to withdraw that expression.

Mr. Nosworthy: I have pleasure in withdrawing it. It was, he continued, one of the most unfair attacks he had ever heard during the past 15 years. Th<> member accused , the Government 0)' delaying the Bill for the purpose of side-tracking it or forcing it through. That was absolutely incorrect. J>;iht .M?s.siou evidence was taken, and a further opportunity was "promised to Hie House of considering the Bill which was now given. Further evidence had been taken, and no one could say the Bill was rushed through. The evidence had not been in print for a fortnight, and would "be tendered with the Bill when it was reported to the House, which was the usual course. Every effort had been made to give everyone a fair opportunity. • j Mr. Forbes said they had listened to .some heated language i'roim the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Wilford: As usual.

Mr. Forbes said that if his, cause was jiist, a man did not require to become angry. It was not satisfactory to ask She J louse to decide on the Bill without peeing the evidence. This was legislation which required eareful watching. It was occasioned by the incapacity of the government, 'For example, the position with the shecpfarmers was sunlr '.bat the producers simply asked fo-.-legislation to take it out of the hand* of farmers. Surely a. . Government should be able to make better terms, for freightsrthan any section of produce.;-*. As far as the Dairy Bill was concerned, there Mere influences at work. They knew the charge that Mr. Masters had prevented the Rill going through last session would not stand investigation. The Government then hud a good majority, and could have put it through if (hey wanted. Tho members of the House were at present having to sit as dummies because no evidence was available, and there was no chance o;' their understanding the position as submitted-to the committee. , lie had no doubt, the vested interests in the butter industry had been pulling the strings. Every class of producer would want a pool, and that would bo a very unsatisfactory position. He .hoped when Mr. Ma-ssey, .went to England-he would see Lord Incheape or ! Lord somebody ia regard to the unfairness of the existing freights. Mr. Forbes declared that, such organisations *as pools would not kavo been set up but for the fact that the producers had lost confidence in the Government to do anything for them. There was no parallel between tho present state of the dairy industry and the position of tho meat industry at the timo meat control was formed. The Prime Minister said he was not going to reply to the very violent, almsivo speeches just delivered, but he wished' to explain that the evidence taken before the committee was in the printing - office.

Mir. Masters: It is not. We saw it ten days ago. .Mr. Afassey: It is quite possible to see a. proof copy.

Mr. Afastcrs: Wo saw it in book form. Mir. Massey said his information wa.< supplied by Mir. Nosuortky. The Prouiiei; appealed fo members not to talk out the committee's report on tho Rill and thus lose another day. He pointed out that the Finance Rill for the handling of millions was passed through all stages in one day, and the same course could bo taken with the Dairy Control Rill. It. could be taken to-morrow. Mr. Smith: Take it Homo with you. Mr. Massev: That is what you would like.

The Pi'emior*added that dairy farmers it lid others who dealt in butter understood the Rill from A to 'A. Mr. Isltt advised tho Government fo drop the compulsory clauses of the Rill. Ho'Was devoutly thankful that the Prime Minister hnd not made it a party question, because he thought the measure was as vicious and clangorous in principle as it could possibly be. He could not- imagine how Reform members could support such a. system of Slate control when the same principle, applied to other businesses, aroused their most bitter hostility. Mr. Holland stated that the Labor Party stood for tho organising of mar-

kcting, and its atitude would bo dib'-j closed on the second reading of tho Bill. They would not delay its prosent course. PRIME MINISTER SUGGESTS | PLEBISCITE. I Tho Premier interposed with a suggestion that tho question of compul-1 sionibe: submittod for decision by the suppliers themselves. He thought that it was only possible to get a decision of farmers by a vote of the majority. He was prepared to let a majority of farmers decide whether the Bill should come into operation or not. He did not want to see time wasted. Let the House come to a decision, j Mr. McLeodi Yes—in or out. 1

Mr. Musscyi Yes cr no. Lot 711cmbers have tho opportunity of showing where they stand. He added that he behoved the majority of producers were in favor of the Bill, and he asked the members seriously to let the committee's report pass without delay, so that the measure could go upon Thursday's order paper. Ho would have to consult the Minister of Agriculture on the subject, but he personally favored making provision for a plebiscite of producers on the Bill before it came into operation. (Hear, hear.) Mr. 0. Smith stated that he 'proposed moving an amendment to refer the Bill to the producers. Mr. Young said that those who favored the Bill were mainly producers, while the opposition appeared to he engineered by those engaged in the purchase of butter here and in London. He quoted a telegram stating that tho New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company had held a meeting at Hamilton, attended by\3oo shnrehold.ors, representing 8000 dairy farmers, and that a resolution was passed, practically unanimously, urging "the Government to pass t]ie Bill this session. Mr. McComhs said the Bill proposed syndicalism rather than Socialism. He favored a plebiscite, and if a majority of the settlers favored the pool, then they should have ■ another plebiscite two years afterwards to say whether the pool was to he continued. Tho Hon. Mi\ 'Ngata said he favored the Bill, but, regretted Mr. Massey's promise of a-plebiscite. The Hon. J. A. Hunan said they had to consider the inter-sts of the people as a whole. Surely the great majority of tho people '■"were to ha\«; a f.ay in the matter. Ho pointed out the danger of too many pools. They would havo the railway asking for a pool, and then the tomato growers, • Sir George Hunter, chairman of the select committee, said ho would reserve his remarks in reply till a future occasion.

Tho report of the committee was adopted.

THE COMMITTEE'S AMEND ' . ■Scents.

DIRECT ELECTION OF PRODUCERS' MEMBERS.

CHANGE IN CONTRACT CLAUSE,

(Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day

As it has emerged from tho Agricultural and Stock Couimi/tee, .the Dairy Export Control Bill docs not bear much evidence of amendment, but changes in phraseology and dates here and there make important • alterations in tho operation of tho measure. The committee, in dealing with tho clause providing for the election of nine producers' representatives to the Dairy Produce Control Board, added tho words "by direct vote of, the producers." Three members will thus be elected by direct vote of the South Island daily product-is, and s& by the North Island''producer's. Clause IT. sought to prohibit the export of dairy produce from Now Zealand, save;. .wider a. license issued by the Board, or to bo issued by tho Minister of Agriculture, subject to ' the conditions andrestrietaons approved by the Board. As tho committee aas amended the clause the licensing authority vested solely in tho Minister, though still subject to conditions which may bo'imposed by the Control Board.

The clause protecting contracts'"lias lUidorgonc ijupprtnnt alteration in respect to the date of protected contracts. It now provides that the Board shall not exercise its powers so as to 'prejudicially-a hc.ct the sale of dairy produce oat.of New Zealand if such a contract had \ loon entered into ill writing on oi' before October 1, 1!)2~. The original Bill submitted to the committee applied to contracts entered into on or before July .1, .192:5. Tlu: power of the Boai;d to create a reserve fund lias been slightly curtailed by an addition to the sub-sect ion. dealing with-this matter of the words "of such amounts not exceeding iji<any year the maximum amount levied, for "that year under section 14 hereof." Section 14 provides for a maximum export levy of one-eighth of a penny per lb. of butter and one-sixteenth' of a penny per lb. of cheese/