DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16211, 23 August 1923, Page 8

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

THE, COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

STRONG OPPOSITION SHOWN;

iper press Association.)

* WELLINGTON, >st night. That the ; Dairy Produce'Control Bill will be. strongly opposed and just as warahly supported by members of the House of Representatives was* evident this afternoon, when the report of the Agricultural and Stock Committee was brought down. The committee recommends as follows :

The committee recommended that the Bill be allowed to proceed with the amendments made by them. The firstamendment is one providing that the producers' v representatives should be ejected by direct- vote of the producers Clause 11, which provides that export may be prohibited by the Board or the Minister, has been altered to read "by the Minister; subject to the conditions approved hy the Board in Clause 32, which provides that the Board may assume control \of dairy produce intended for export." ; Sub-clause 8 has been amended to read "the Board shall not exercise its powers under this section with respect, to the. sale o| aijy dairy produce sci as prejudicially to afiopt the operation of any contract of agency in respect of the sale of dairy produce out of: New Zealand, if such contract has beeri entered into in: wilting on or before the first day of October, 1922.": The date i previously mentioned was ,July, 1923. Section' 16 ha.? been amended to read, "all moneys received by the Board % \ w #y o f under Section 14 or in respect of'the sale of dairy produce or otherwise shall be paid by the Board into a separate account at a bank." The words "by way of levy" have been added. . The only other amendment made by the committee is in regard to the payments into the reserve fund. The provision is that the amounts shall not. exceed in any year the maximum amount levied for that year under Section 14, which provides for the levy on dairy produce exported. s ,Mr. Masters, the member for Strata ford, led off in opposition to the Bill, charging the Government with insincerity. ~ The Hon. Mr. Nosworthy, Minister of Agriculture, who has been working hard to get the Bill through Parliament, interjected; "That is tho limit." Mr. Musters I said the evidence had been ready eight days before, and members should have been given an opportunity of seeing it. He asked how could they Jbe expected, now that the Prime Minister was going away early next week, to deal with the Bill as well as all the work that had yet to be done. The Government were evidently resolved either to force the Bill through at the dying hours of the session, so that there could be no opposition, or to shelve it for the time being, in the hope that some members of the opposite party would oppose it, and have the blame laid on them. They were not, however, going to blame him (Mr. Masters). The Prime Minister: Unless you deserve it.

Mr. Masters, continuing, said it was wrong in principle to introduce legislation of a revolutionary type at this stage of the session. Parliament was not in a position to say that the daily farmers of the country wanted the Bill.

He admitted that the Prime Minister was' not making the Bill a party question, and the Opposition would take up the same attitude. At the same time the Government had made political capital out of the Bill, and said he had held it up. The Prime Minister: So you did. Mr. Masters said that the Prime Minister must know that there was a great deal of opposition to the Bill among daily fanners, mainly on (account of the compulsory clauses. " Without that, he believed the Prime Minister would have no difficulty in getting the Bill through. There were men in the House whp were advocating *the Bill, who were nothing more nor less tlian “professional chait> men.” (Dissent.) The Prime Minister had always impressed the House that he kept his word, and said if the farmers agreed he would introduce legislation. The secretary of the National Dairy Association had made the same statement, adding that the Bill would not. bo forced on the farmers. The member for Patea had said, “Go into the thing whole-heartedly.” Were the farmers of the Dominion whole-heartedly in favor of the Bill? Mr. J. It. Corrigan (Patea) : Easily. (Laughter.) Mr., Masters roviewed the deliberations of the original conference of dairy farmers held in Wellington in regard to the matter. The Taranaki provineo was represented by six gentlemen at the conference. What was their position? Mr. Morten had been touring tho Dominion in favor of the Dominion sup-

porting the Bill, but the suppliers of his own factory had unanimously opposed the Bill. Mr. Sandford and Mr. Cannop were in the same, position. The proposal had been thoroughly thrashed out in Taranaki, yet there were 42 factories against it, and 19 for it. The promoters of the original scheme were in South Taranaki. l!t was instigated at Kaupokunui. The best dairy factory in Taranaki was producing 2600 tons of cheese. What was their position today? , • ,T. . 1 _ Mr. Corrigan: They were muzzled, / Mr. Masters: It would be better if you were muzzled.

The Speaker called Mr. Masters to order." , ••.;■' X .."; ,'''.. Mr. Masters said there were 30 per cent, of the dairy factories against the Bill, and 26£ per cent, of the cheese factories against , it, accordiog to the figures presented by Mr. Brpwn. Even those figures were not reliable, inasmuch as they included factories in support of the Bill, which were known to bo against it. With.regard >tO- the position in the South Island,. ;tbere were 89 factories in favor of the Bill, and 3.8 against it. Thirty-eight factories were not represented. The vote was taken of the factories according to the amount they paid. The South - Island Dairy Association had to admit that the vote was no indication of \ the support or opposition of the Bill. Was it right and just that legislation of a kind that had not beforo been heard of in the world should be forced on the farmers? He was prepared to admit that there was justification for the meat export control, and which was passed, because that industry had been down to such a state that Would warrant anything being done to help it, but was this the'easo with the dairying industry? The Minister of Agriculture (tho Hon. W. Nosworthy) said he had any amount of evidence in favor of the Bill, and he believed that the evidence was absolutely correct. "The member for Stratford," he said, "has endeavored to cover up the position by the dirtiest attack I have ever heard in 15 years' cxperianco in Parliament." The leader of the Opppaition asked that the Minister be directed to withdraw the remark. > Mr. Nosworthy: I have much plea-

r sure in withdrawing it, and I will say it - was -one of the most unfair attacks I P have over heard in this or any other 3 Parliament. The member for Stratford 1 accused the Government of trying to 1 side-track the Bill. | Mr. Masters: Or force it through, j Tho Minister: “Emphatically those - statements are absolutely incorrect. The t Government lost no time last session in ? setting up a special committee. Tho Gove ernmcnt have kept their promise, and o the Bill is now before tho House. We B decided to refer it to the Agricultural • and Pastoral Committee for evidence to » bo taken. There were so many that ? desired to give evidence that it was decided to defer it for some days longer, r and give an equal and full opportunity b to everyone to put his case before tho a committee. I deny the truth of the • statement of tho lion, member that the - evidence has been in print for a- fort- , night. The Bill and tho evidence have 3 been brought, down in accordance with r the traditions of the House that they J should appear together. Every effort i was made by the Government to give r everybody a fair rryi. Tho Government lias,, been wrongly accused of a sinister • purpose.’’ Mr. Nosworthy appealed to the leader of tho Opposition as to the - arrangements for bringing down the ' Bill. He had consulted him about it, 1 and ho told him lie proposed to bring a it down to-day, as some of the Opposi--3 tion had been away from the House bo- • fore when ho had so consulted i their - wishes. All ho got in return was this - accusation.

The Prime Minister: What else, can you expect? , Mr. Nosworthy: It is the most unjustified attack I have heard against any • Government. lam quite content to i leave the case for the Government in i the hands of the people, j Mr. G. W. Forbes: Hoar, hear. Mr. Masters: Will you take a vote? Mr. Nosworthy: I will toll yon later. Before very long tho people may have an opportunity of saying what they | think of tho Government. \yo are in ' a position to face the country and say wo have done everything to help the I primary producers during tho most ex-

traordinary period the country has over been through. The member for Strutford has given his position away, when he admitted that the Meat • Export Board was a good thing. •■:,'■',■ Mr. Masters: I did not say that. ~ At this stage the'Speaker advised the member for Stratford that he had already warned him several times. Ho hoped he would not force him to take drastic steps. After this rebuke Mr. Masters remained quiet. " ' \ • - . ~ The Minister • It was under extraordinary 'circumstances that the Bill was brought in to-day. We are happy to acknowledge that the conditions in the dairy industry are a great, deal better than for some considerable time, and better than the meat industry was when the Meat Export Control Act was passed. To bo forewarned is to bo forearmed. A great number of influences had been brought to bear on Parliament in connection with the fight ovor the Bill. In 1897 there were 57 proprietary factories, in 1903 47, in 1913 29, and in 1923 only 11. All the proprietary interests had fought against the Bill, and the fight they had been putting up through propaganda, through the press, and through their own interests, had justified the dairy farmers in organising in regard to their own industry. The Bill meant national cooperation. It did not moan a ■trust, or combine in any sense. If they were to be denied the right of organising for their own protection, for the supervision of their shipping, and the sale of ther products, those opposed to them would have a very hard case-under any democratic system of government. I

repeat it "was an unfair attack on the G ovomment! The Prime Minister is due at the greatest'. Imperial Conference yet held. Hd had a large number of financial Bills to present to Parliament, and he had so t*> arrange the order paper to make it absolutely necessary to get legislation such as the reduction of taxation through. We had no control over the circumstances under which the presentation of this Bill had been held back. I have no personal interests in the matter. I am prepared to sit hero for two or three months, and I am satisfied the farmer will bo behind me. (Hear, hear.) ' -

The Prime Minister expressed surprise at the violence of the speech the House had heard from Mr. Masters. The real difficulty of getting the evidence was that it was delayed in the printing office. , • ,

Mr. Masters again interrupted, and the Speaker indicated that he- was very loath to take final action. He, hoped the hon, member would take notice of his warning. '

Tho Prime Minister asked members to remember the time, and not talk the report but. All ho wanted was that the Bill should be put to a vote. A member: Are you in favor of a plebiscite of suppliers? / Mr. Massey: What is a plebiscite but a vote ? All the dairy farmers in the country know tho Bill from A to k, and their desire was that it bo placed; on the Statute Book this session. If the Bill goes to a vote and is defeated I shall have been satisfied. I have no objection to the insertion of a- clause allowing a majority of farmers to det-er-iriine the compulsory issue before the Bill comes into operation. After some 1 other- speeches the report was laid on the table., ~;