“FARMERS BOUND IN SERFDOM”

Southland Times, Issue 23374, 4 December 1937, Page 8

“FARMERS BOUND IN SERFDOM”

STATE CONTROL OF PRODUCE SCHEME CRITICIZED BY MR COATES (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, December 2. “Farmers are sold into serfdom and slavery as long as the present Government remains in office,” said the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) during the debate on the Primary Products Marketing Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives today. It was time, he added, that farmers stood on their own feet and informed the Government that they were determined to handle their own produce.

“At the moment,” said Mr Coates, “the dairy farmer has no say whatsoever in the handling of the goods which he produces. He is bound in serfdom to the Government. He has been given what the Government is pleased to call a guaranteed price, but all he has got out of that is a rise in costs equivalent to 3d a lb of butterfat. Before the election the Labour Party’s spokesmen stated that their first step would be to negotiate trade agreements with the United Kingdom and other countries. After that negotiations would be carried out between the Government and different branches of the farming industry to fix guaranteed prices. In practice the Government has done the very opposite to what it promised. It descended on the dairy industry, and without any attempt to consult farmers, announced a price which was not a guaranteed price but a fixed price. Then the Minister of Marketing went off to Great Britain and Europe to endeavour to negotiate his trade agreements.” LEVY ON IMPORTS It was significant, said Mr Coates, that as soon as a Minister had begun his discussions with the United Kingdom Government, the threat of a levy on dairy imports had again raised its head. In place of a reciprocal agreement, there was something which threatened the very existence of the dairy industry in the Dominion. The issue of an import levy had been revived purely as a result of the clumsy efforts to force on Great Britain the Minister’s personal fad of bulk barter agreements. It was in effect a betrayal of the dairy farmer. “As for this latest Bill,” Mr Coates continued, “it is simply designed to give complete dictatorial powers to the Government. The Minister is entitled to fix the wholesale and retail prices for any foodstuffs which may be brought under legislation. By the issue of regulations, private trading and the making of arrangements between the producer and the purchaser will become a thing of the past.” Proof of the sweeping powers contained in the Bill, Mr Coates said, was embodied in the penalty clause under that provision. It would be impossible for a man to buy a dozen eggs from his neighbour at less than the fixed price without both parties being liable to fines of £2OO. Everything was to be regulated and regimented. “The Government members have gone up and down the country,” said Mr Coates, “shouting that they have put a stop to borrowing overseas and that they are reducing the total volume of borrowing. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this Bill there is an extension of powers to borrow by way of an unlimited overdraft on the Reserve Bank in order to finance State marketing. It does not matter whether it is called an’ overdraft or a loan, money had to be found from somewhere and the net result is that the country’s debt is being increased.” The position was made even more serious, Mr Coates added, as the result of the provision in the Bill for equalizing various marketing accounts. Apparently the Minister would be permitted to transfer sums from one account to another at will. The way was open for the most bewildering form of financial juggling that it was possible to imagine. The provision for the appointment of advisory committees, said Mr Coates, was merely farcical. Apparently the Government intended to take over the marketing of honey and then possibly it might see fit to appoint a Honey Producers’ Board as an advisory committee. However the producers’ representatives would have no real say in the handling of their produce or the price which was to be paid for it. Mr T. H. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton): They are not consulted in the price today. Mr Coates: They have a right to say whether or not they will take the prices offered and arrange their businesses accordingly. There they have to take prices fixed arbitrarily by a group of dictators. THREAT OF BUREAUCRACY “The entire Bill represents an unwarranted interference with the normal trade of the country,” Mr Coates continued. “It cuts right across the path of private trading and ignores the fact that this country was raised to its present state of prosperity by individual effort. The scheme has been borrowed direct from communist Russia and has no relation to the ideals and principles of the British people. Bureaucracy will again run wild and producers, distributors and consumers will all be at its mercy. As I see it this Bill will wipe out in a very short time practically all the small shop keepers of this country, who will be powerless to stand up against the onrushing steam-roller of State enterprise. Once the principle laid down in the Bill is established it is bound to be extended until we have a complete system of State marketing. Producers will be paid servants of the State, which will then proceed to act as shop keeper. The inevitable result of such a scheme, with its general fixation of prices, must be a further marked rise in the cost of living to every man and woman and child in the Dominion.”