PLAN DECLARED ORIGINAL

Southland Times, Issue 23311, 22 September 1937, Page 6

PLAN DECLARED ORIGINAL

FAVOURABLE RESULT CLAIMED SUPPORT FROM FARMERS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, September 21. The argument advanced by members of the Opposition that the Government’s marketing policy was merely a variation of the plan prepared by the New Zealand Dairy Board before the last election was denied by the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash) during the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives tonight. The Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) had stated that the Government had taken over someone else’s marketing procedure, Mr Nash said. All the credit for the new marketing procedure was due to the men in the department in New Zealand and those at the London end. Mr Hamilton had said that the new marketing plan had been lying in the offices of the Dairy Board, but that was not so. , “Why has it taken the members of the Opposition about 15 months to say that?” the Minister asked. “If that is true, why did I discuss the whole position with the Dairy Conference. Why did we have negotiation after negotiation with the Dairy Board if it was simply some procedure already in its scheme that was advocated? The new procedure came before the House last year in the Primary Products Marketing Act. “The pl'ui suggested to the Dairy Board by Mr Davis was a group marketing scheme,” Mr Nash said, ‘ and it would have been physically impossible for the competing organizations that would have been created to have secured anything like the results we have had from the one organization in control in New Zealand and in London in the past 12 months. Mr Davis formerly thought it would be possible to carry out marketing through one organization, yet when he had a chance of doing it that way he did it magnificently. The co-operation between the agents, the London organization and the department in New Zealand has been excellent.” Extracts from letters supporting the scheme received from persons engaged in the dairy industry were quoted by the Minister. The general view was that at least 80 per cent, of the farmers in a district were delighted with the price. The bulk of the extra money spent by the dairy farmers during the past 12 months was due to the fact that they had better incomes, that they were paid as soon as their produce was placed on the ship and that they knew exactly what they could afford to buy. Last year more ground had been broken for top-dressing and for the use of fertilizers. More milking plants were in use last year than ever before and with one exception more new machines were purchased. One of the ablest men in Tooley street had stated that he was satisfied that the procedure followed had added from 1/- to 2/-_ a cwt to the returns. The extra shilling meant an additional £150,000 to New Zealand. Others held that it had added from 5/- to 10/- more. “The Government affirms that it is going on with the procedure it has initiated,” said Mr Nash, “and it feels that it has the support of 90 per cent, of the working dairy farmers of this Dominion. It feels that no one in this House is prepared to go into any dairyfarming constituency and advocate the abolition of the guaranteed price and the marketing system.” The Minister resumed his seat amid applause.