NO EXCUSES

Southland Times, Issue 20200, 10 June 1927, Page 9

NO EXCUSES

COATES GOVERNMENT REFORM MEMBER IN CRITICAL MOOD STRIKING SPEECH BY MR J. R. HAMILTON That he did not absolve the Government from blame and would not make excuses for the Coates Ministry, was the tenor of a striking speech by Mr J. R. Hamilton, Reform Member of Parliament for Awarua, before a small audience at Waianiwa last night. Mr Hamilton dealt trenchantly with such matters as the Dairy Control Board, the Arbitration Court, land values and banking. The speaker explained that, in view of the fact that Parliament would commence another session in about a fortnight’s time, and that the economic position was very good, he considered the present an opportune time to address his constituents. He had not gone the length of preparing a political address, however, and it was his desire that the meeting be as informal as possible. He not only desired to place his views on one or two matters before them, but he wanted them to express their opinions, because if he knew how his constituents regarded various matters he would be the better able to represent them in the House during, what he believed, was going to be a very important session. THE LAND QUESTION. Various features, proceeded Mr Hamilton, had contributed towards the present economic depression throughout ,the country, but the principal reason was that the primary producers were not getting a fair deal. If the problems confronting the farmer were solved, those which faced the rest of the country would automatically be remedied, for they all hinged on difficulties experienced by the producers. It was his experience that the farmer did not hold up his money, but invariably utilised it in effecting improvements to his property. Taking the theory accepted by many that land prices were responsible for the present difficulties, it was possible to view the contention from three angles—the man who owned his land and had no mortgage, the man whose land was mortgaged but whose equity was large, and the man who bought his land when prices were high and now had no equity. In the first instance lower values did not affect the owner at all for the producing capacity of his land remained the same, whilst in the second case there was no effect either for the owner could not take any more off the land than it was capable, of producing. In the case of the third man who had no equity at all in his holding it was the speaker’s experience that in nine out of ten cases mortgagors were meeting owners. Land had only one value—its productive value—but where prices of produce were continually fluctuating the position of the producer would never be satisfactory. If on the other hand he was assured of a stable return for his output and his labour, he would be able to reap some profit from his endeavours. Land values therefore, had nothing to do with the present state of affairs. What was needed was the assurance of payable returns for primary products. Proceeding, Mr. Hamilton stated that many people contended that the law of supply and demand must operate in determining the return received for farm produce, but the position was that the law of supply and demand was allowed to operate only as those in control desired it to. Personally, he did not begrudge a reasonable commission for the handling of farm produce provided the farmers were given fair treatment, but the whole of the evidence was against those who did the handling. It was just as easy to regulate the market to secure a fair price to the farmer as it was to secure an unfair one. The trouble was that the farmers themselves lacked organisation and unanimity of purpose. After all the farmer produced the goods and surely he was entitled to say what price he was going to sell at. FARMERS ON BOX SEAT. The speaker continued that they must make their strength felt as producers. Some people asked what was the use of trying to fight the merchants. But it must bo remembered that the producers held the box seats, because they had the goods. Surely they had the same rights as the Proprietary Articles Traders’ Association, which was attempting to fix the price of everything it handled. As a matter of fact inquiries were being made to see if the P.A.T.A. was contravening the Board of Trade regulations, and it seemed as though it might be stopped from operating. DAIRY CONTROL. Mr. Hamilton said that a large number of people blamed the Dairy Control Board for a good deal of the present depression. A voice: They are pretty near right too, aren’t they? The speaker replied that he was not going to defend Mr. Coates or anyone else, but simply to outline facts as he saw them. A good deal had been said about the goodwill of the Tooley Street merchants, but what did that goodwill amount to? —Simply the right to buy and operate and speculate as they pleased. There was no '‘goodwill” in it so far as the producers of New Zealand were concerned. It was now an impossibility to make any comparison between what we would have received without control and what we have been receiving under control. It must be remembered that when the board took control of dairy produce it had a number of adverse influences to contend with. A nine months’ strike had just finished in Britain and the miners, usually big consumers of cheese were unable to buy as freely as before. But as soon as the board took charge, the price was raised £lO per ton and was kept rising until the producers at length got a fair value for their goods. The merchants then saw that the game was up so far as speculation was concerned and redoubled their efforts to wreck the board. A representative of one of the biggest firms had said: “Once your policy gets into operation you will never go back on it.” The merchants were a well organised power and the board was not, with the result that the speculators succeeded in forcing prices down. No one had produced an iota or tittle of evidence in support of the allegation that the British consumers were opposed to the board. The trouble lay with the Tooley street merchants, who were not in the game for their health. Recent visitors to England who had inquired into the position had given an assurance that the merchants had never given the producers a fair deal. The board would have succeeded in stabilising the market had not these men raised a hue and cry that the produce was piling up in Britain and the British consumers were up against the board. Unfortunately the drops in prices and the serious fluctuations engineered by Tooley street had not benefited the consumer at all. At a regular period every year a fall in prices was staged with a view to letting the speculator in, and subsequently the prices rose simply to let him out again. He had spoken to many critics of the control system, but it was singular that not one of them was able to propose an alternative scheme, apart from a return to the old higgeldy-piggeldy method of doing things. Those of his hearers who had been on the directorate of dairy factories before control would know just how difficult it was for them to sell their cheese and butter. For example a buyer would meet the directors and offer them one-eighth more provided they did not mention the fact for ten days. Then he would visit the other factories in the district and repeat the process, until at length he was paying a penny more than he had been paying the first factory. The old system could not be described as a fair and equitable one. There was no more satisfactory method in the world than the way our wool is sold, but the

same could not be said of the dairy industry. They had only one market—London — and it was an easy as falling off a log for the merchants to rig the market at the expense of the producer. They knew how to cut out competition. People were too apt to read the evidence disseminated through—say—the columns of the Southland Times. He had the greatest respect for the papers, but too many people had formed their opinions from the daily press. Not a single paper, from the North Cape to the Bluff, had given Dairy Control a fair hearing. They must evolve a better method of disseminating knowledge about the system. MR COATES’ RESPONSIBILITY. The speaker went on to say that he did not entirely absolve Mr Coates from blame, as he did not think that the latter’s judgment had been as good as it might have been. Mr Coates had admitted to him that the board could have been selling to the consumers at the end of twelve months. The thing was then possible, and he (the speaker) maintained that it could still be done. The speaker instanced the matter of the cool stores in England and said that the merchants who owned the stores refused to reduce their charges when requested by the board. When there seemed a likelihood of the board obtaining its own stores, down came the charges immediately. To achieve their object the producers of New Zealand must fight together, for if they didn’t shake these gentry from their backs they would cling there to the end of time. It had been said that it was useless to fight Tooley Street, but he maintained that there was no such word in the dictionary as “can’t.” Personally he would support anyone who would assist to improve New Zealand’s system of marketing in Great Britain. Things could not go on as at present. Questioned at a later stage of the meeting on the compulsion clause of the Dairy Control Act, Mr Hamilton said that if the clause were removed from the Act they would have nothing left and the whole system might as well be abolished. The prospects for the future were bright, for if in the past they had only succeeded in finding out who was opposed to the board and what tactics to adopt in the future, it was something gained. ARBITRATION COURT. “The opinion is freely held,” continued Mr Hamilton, “that the Arbitration Court should be abolished as it presses too heavily on the producers. It is my opinion that the Court must be remodelled or abolished. Doubtless it was set up for a very worthy reason —to counteract ‘sweating’ in various industries—and a certain amount of good was accomplished, but it has far exceeded the scope of the original intention.” Awards, he added, must be made with a view to securing maximum and efficient service for the remuneration given and any suggested improvements would receive his whole-hearted support, even to the abolition of the preference to unionists clause. A voice: We certainly want that deleted. Legislation, continued.. Mr Hamilton was required to get away from the present system, and he was prepared to support any suggestion that would give the farmers relief. MANURES. Mr Hamilton also referred to the matter of securing cheaper supplies of manures stating that the farmer held the solution himself. He (the speaker) favoured the erection of a crushing plant at Bluff, as providing a more economic supply, but if the farmers did not desire to go to this length they must be content with the position as it existed at present. He did not think there was much chance of securing financial aid from the Government. BANKING. The recent increase of 4 per cent, in interest on bank overdrafts was also dealt with, the speaker expressing surprise that the Government had allowed the step to be taken without making a protest. The bulk of the producers had overdrafts and would consequently be affected by the increase. Personally he was awaiting a Ministerial statement concerning the failure of the Government to make a protest. One had to form one’s opinions on contemporary events and inspired by recent events he would be prepared to support a State Bank or an Agricultural Bank for the purpose of breaking the banking monopoly which at present existed. It was manifestly an unfair thing to raise the rate of interest on the assumption that it would stop the extravagance of the people and bethought something would be said about it next session. MR HOLLAND’S TOUR. Commenting on the reception which had been accorded Mr H. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, in his recent Dominion tour Mr Hamilton stated that the people were being appealed to on their present temper, which, based on financial stringency, was as near revolt as it possibly could be. They were willing to accept anything that offered hopes of an improvement and the Leader of the Opposition had consequently been given a very good hearing. Certainly some change had to be made in the direction of giving the producers a fair and equitable price for their output, and he personally intended to direct all his energies on those lines. If therefore he could get the opinions of his constituents he would be better able to attend to their needs in Parliament. He was not making excuses for the Government. Some things should have been done, while some things would have to be done to retain the confidence of the people. “The point is: Give us the remedy as you see it and if it promises better things than my suggestions I will give it my fullest sujJbort.” A QUESTION. At the conclusion of his speech a questioner asked Mr Hamilton to express his opinion on the necessity or otherwise of a new Government. “The difficulty, to my mind,” replied Mr Hamilton, “is who are you going to accept ?” Proceeding, he referred to Mr Veitch’s criticism that the Government was solely responsible for the depression in land values. He contended that land values were regulated by the price ruling for primary produce. In purchasing land for soldier settlers the Government had to pay the prices ruling at the time, which values were not created by the Government. Dealing with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hamilton said that Mr Holland had a very acceptable policy in front of him, viewed in the light of the present position, but he had a very objectionable one behind him. His financial policy was very unsound. A State Bank, backed by a printing machine, was all it amounted to, and the experience of Germany showed what could be expected from this policy. THANKS AND CONFIDENCE. Mr P. Dalrymple moved a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Hamilton for his address. In doing so he stated that whatever opinion one held of the Government at the present time, they knew where Mr Hamilton stood, and they should assure him of their continued confidence in him as their member. A motion on these lines was carried unanimously.