Dairy Produce Control

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 93, 24 August 1923, Page 7

Dairy Produce Control

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE.

OBJECTION TO COMPULSION.

Per Press Association

Wellington, August 23. The debate on the motion to comnjjit the Dairy Produce Control Bill was hi the House to-day by Sir John Luke (Wellington North). Ho said ho would do all ho could to prevent this bill becoming law. Ho was opposed to tho compulsory clauses of the Bill. Ho thought that those farmers who desired to poo! their products should be enabled to do so, but ho objected to compulsion. Hefdid not see where tho advantage to sNow Zealand was coming from through compulsion. The Hon. W, Nosworthy quoted in support of the Bill a potion of the recommendations of Lord Linlithgow’s committee to the Britsh House of Parliament in the direction of stabilising prices for a number o" years. He saf' that tho Bill without tho compulsory clauses was not of tho slightest use. It might never Iw necessary to put those clauses into operation, but they wore there as a safeguard. He was receiving telegrams from all parts of the country urging that the Bill Ire passed with tho compulsory clauses. Ho though' ho was. doing his duty if ho stuck to the (Bill as it was. Regarding the plebiscite mentioned by the Prime Minister, Mr Nosworthy said he was not keen on it, bid ho ould not make a definite state merit at tire present juncture wire ther ho would agree to it or not. Hr thought if ho did agree to the plebiscite he would Ire setting up a precedent whjicli ho thought would i be dangerous. Ho wanted, before he feaid anything, to. consult tho Prime Minister or tho party. Mr R. Masters (Stratford) said In as satisfied from tho statement of the Minister that they had boon “fooled.” The Prime Minister had prac tically promised the previous dar that a plebiscite of the farmers would be taken, and now the Minister a much as said that it was not to bo.

He thought the Prime Minister’*

promise should ho carried out. H<i opposed the clause allowing certain firing under contract of agency made before the Bill was brought doflhi

being .immune f ora the compulsory clauses. These firms dealt with a ninth of the Dominion’s output. If we take the experiences! of other countries which Have pools wo must bo very careful. Ho said the farm er.s of Australia had protected themselves fi om further pools. The honey producers in Now Zealand had not improved themselves by forming a pool.

Mr O. Hawken (Egmont) said tinreasons for the Bill were quite plain to those who understood the markets. There was no control over ou produce from the time it left tlm Dominion. Ho thought the purpose of the I:)1I was the supervision o. c the p oducts after they were oxnorted. No company except the Waikato had agents at Home. They had to rely on brokers to know what became of their gool.s. The opposition to tho Bill, came mainly from towns people, while tho country people far ou''ed it. Those connected with the industry itself at Home were also in favour of it. 1 /

Mr F. Langhtoue (Waimariho) said tlie pool would be of vo y great advantage to te primary producers of New Zealand and would make prodnoons look at the matter in a national aspect, which would be a good tiling. The reason why tho honev pool was not a success was because it lacked Government control and he believed the time was not far distant when all other industries would be asking for what was proposed in this Bdl. It would bo found, as indust Jtca become more organised, that prices would becomo'more established at Home, and people wore now beginning to realise this. He would support a plebiscite being taken. He "•as of opinion that the workers in the in us try should bo represented on the Control Board.

Mr 0. B. MacMillan (Tauranga) said that a sane organisation to regulate the supply pn tho Homo market and supervision of it there waP necessary in order to obtain tho best prices.

The Hon. W. Nosworthy said that n’ith a view to limiting the discussion on the Kill ho was prepared to out out of sub-clause four of clause three the" words inserted by the committee by the direct vote of producers,” as there was an impression that without these words the selection of the producers’ representatives on the board of Control could be elected with loss expense. Ho also desired to reinstate “July, 1923” in place of “October, 1922,” and at the end of the Bill ho would move a ne w clause giving power to the producers to take a referendum upon the Bill before it was brought into force. Mr T. M. Wilford (Leader of the

Opposition) gave general support to the Bill, because after all the marketing of our produce was the jugular vein of the whole industrial body. At the same time lie wished to see ms or ted in the measure some clause which would protect tho consumer in the Dominion agiyust exploitation after the Board of Control begins operations. With regard to slopping, he advised against long term contracts being entered into.

Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) objected to compulsion and would on that account oppose tho Bril.

Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party) said that judging from communications received by him on the subject of tho Bill he had come to tho conclusion that the working farmers were in favour of tho measure and the P-op.ietary concerns \re.o against it. Tho Labor Party took up the attitude that the effective marketing of our produce was only to effective production Wo could improve our marketing system, and if this Bill would help in that direction his party would give it general support. If the farmers accepted the Bill then ho did not think anyone else had a right to object &> long as local consumers wore adequately protected against exploitation. He urged that tho wage workers in the industry should have representation on the board of control.

Mr A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa) do- 1 P"eoated State into .ference in the industry. He agreed that some form of control was necessary in the; dairy industry, and while this con- 1 tiol Was exorcised by the producers themselves there was no harm in it.

Mr S. G. Smith (Ta anaki) said all the small farmers in his elector- 1 ate were opiposed to tho Bill, and in face of the general opposition to it the measure should not be passed. One of tho chief objections to it was. the lack of confidence in tho propos-1 ala as outlined to the producers. Mr J. C. Rolleston (Wrjttonio) said' a good deal of the opposition to the; Bill amongst farmers wa s du e to a 1 feeling that many of the powers contained in it were far too arbitrary. He would support any measure winch denied to the farmer the right to dispose of his produce as he pleased.

Sir G. Hunter, chairman of the Agricultural Committee, which considered the Bill, said that of the witnesses who gave evidence 228 factories favoured the Bill, while 183 were against it. These witnesses rep.osenl.ed the following outputs : . For the Bill; cheese 38,484 tons. Against the Bill ’; Butter 10,D74 tons, cheese ■ 11,411 tonb. Witnesses representing Auckland factories were over' helming in favour of the Bill, ’A.rauaki was slightly, against the Bill, while- Wellington was strongly in favour of the measure.

After midnight th e debate wa s carried on by several members and at I.Jo a.m. tho House went into committee.

Meters A\- Ilford and Holland protested against going on further at that sitting, and the discussion on the protest was jnoceeding when the telegraph office closed at 2 a.m. At 2.5 the short title of the Bill was agreed to, and in accordance with a promise given by the Premier, progress w r as reported.

At 2.10 the House rose until 1.30 this afternoon.