DAIRY CONTROL.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16212, 24 August 1923, Page 9

DAIRY CONTROL.

DEBATE ON THE MU.

(Pt'r Press Association.) WELLINGTON, laai night. Tlio debate on the motion to commit the Dairy Produce Control Bill was opened by Sit «L Luke, who said ho wotild do all lie could _to prevent this ! Bill becoming law. tie .opposed the i compulsory clauses of Die Bill. lie thought ;lhat those farmers who desired to pool their products should he enabled to do so, blit he objected to compulsion and did not see where the advantage to New Zealand was coming from through compulsion. «- The lion. W. Nosworthv quoted in support ip the Bill a- portion of Lord Linlithgow's dommittee’n rccomrnerida- ; tioiis to the Homo Parliament in. the I direction of stabilising prices for a number of years. life said the Bill without. : the compulsory clauses would pot be of tlie slightest use ; It might never be necessary to put these clauses into I operation, but they were there as a I safeguard. He was receiving telegrams •. from all parts of the country urging i that the. Bill be pushed with the comI pulsory clauses, lie thought be would | be doing his duty if he stuck to the 1 Bill .as it.ivas. Regarding the plebiscite j mentioned by tlie Prerfiier he Was not I keen oil it, but he would not make a 1 definite statement at the present juiictme whether ho would agree f.o it or not. If, however, lie did agree to a plebiscite it would be setting up a precedent which he thought might he a dangerous precedent. He wanted, before lie said anything, to consult the Prime Minister and Tiis party. Mf. Masters said he was satisfied from Die.statement of the Minister flint they had beeii "fooled.” The Prime Minister had practically promised on the previous day that a plebiscite of farmers would be. taken. Now the Minister as much as said that it was not to be. He thought the Premier’s promise should be carried out. He opposed the clause allowing certain firms under contracts of agency made before the Bill was brought down, being immune from tlie compulsory clauses. Theso firms dealt with one-niiitli of the Dominion’s output. If we take the experiences of other countries who have pools we must be very careful, lie said. The farmers of Australia- had protected themselves from further pools. Tlie honey producers in New Zealand had not improved themselves by forming a pool. Mr. Ilawken said_ the reasons for the Bill were quite plain to those who understood the markets. There was no control over products from the time they leave the Dominion. He thought itlie purport of the Bill was \ lie supervision of products after they were exported. No company except Waikato had agents at Home, and had to rely on brokers to know what became of t licit- goods. The opposition to the Bill came mainly from tile townspeople, while the country people 'favored it-. Those connected with the industry itself at Home were also in favor of it, Mr. Lnngstone said the pool would be of very gee?/, advantage to the primary producers of New Zealand. It wouid make the. producers look at the rnatler in a. national aspo-t, which would be a good t.liing. The reason why the honey pool was not a success was because it lacked Government control. He believed the time was not- far distant when all the other industries in New Zealand would be asking' for what is proposed in this Bill. It would be found as industries became metre organised that prices would become more stabilised at Home. People there are now beginning to realise this. He would support a plebiscite being taken. He was of opinion that the workers in the industry should be represented o<i the Control Board. Mr. Lysnar said if tlie Minister would make provision for a referendum be would not further oppose the Bill. Mr. Rolleslon (Waitomo) said lie would not support any measure which denied to the farmer the right to dispose of his produce as lie pleased. When Die House resumed at 7.30 the Hon. Mr. Nos worthy, with a view to limiting discussion on tlie Bill, stated that lie was prepared to cut out of subi clause 4 of clause 3 the words inserted by the committee, "by the direct vote iof Die producers,” as there was an impression that without theso words the . producers’ representatives on the Board : of Control could be elected with less I expense, lie also desired to reinstate j ‘’July, 1923,’’ in place of “October, i 19/2.” and at the end of tlie Bill lie ' would mote k new clause, giving power lo the producers 'to take a referendum ! upon the Bill' before it was brought I into force. j Mr. Wilford pave general support to ;ihe Bill, because after all, (bo marketing of our prodiKe was the jugular vein ;of the whole industrial body. At the I same time' he insisted oi.i the insertion !in Jhc measure 1 -6 f some clause, which [ would protect consumers in tho Do(minion against exploitation after the j Board of- Control begins operations. | With regard to shipping, he advised i against s long term contracts being entered into. Mr. Wright objected to compulsion, and would on that account oppose the Bill. Mr. Holland said that, judging 7 from c'oinniunications received by him on the subject of the Bill, ho had copie to Die conclusion that working farmers were in favor of the measure and proprietary concerns ag'ainst it. The Labor party took up the attitude that effective'' marketing of our produce was second only to effective Production, whether one agreed with the pooling system or not. That was the inevitable trend of events, j Tho Labor Government had adopted it. : and it was because of that fact that the : absurd charge had arisen that the Bill was extreme Socialism. He would like ' to improve our marketing system, and I if tliis Bill would help in that direction, i his party Would give it general support;. Tf the farmers accepted the Bill, then he did not think' anyone else had the -right to object so long as local consumers were adequately protected against exploitation. Ho also urged that Die wage workers, in tlie industry should have representation on the Board of Control. I Mr. McLeod deprecated State interference in the industry. He agreed (hat some form of control was necessary 1 in the dairy.industry. While this control was exercised by the producers themselves, there was no harm in it. ' This was simply a pool set up to fight existing pools, as, the meat pool had \ done. i Mr. Smith (Timmaki) said that all the ■ small farmers in hi!* electorate were opposed to the Bill, and in the face of general opposition to it, tlie measure should not be passed. One of the chief objections to it was the lack of confidence in the proposals as outlined to Die producers. At. 1.25 the House went into committee, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Holland ' protesting" against going on further at I that sitting. • PROGRESS REPORTED. ( WELLINGTON, this day. | At 2.5 a.m. the short title of •the'Bill j was agreed to, and in accordance witli the promiso given by the Premier pro- . gross was reported, and at 2.10 a.m. tin' House rose until 1.30 this afternoon,