FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Taranaki Daily News, 10 November 1934, Page 9

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

NECESSITY STILL URGED CRITICISM OF EXECUTIVE. POWERS OF THE MINISTER.' Speaking on the short title of the Agriculture {Emergency Powers) Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, , Mr. M. J. Savage, Leader of the Opposi- . tion, said he could not see any alteration in principle at all. It was simply follow-, ing the example of the Unemployment Board. The Minister would never occupy the chair. The deputy-chairman would be able to meander round the country as he liked. . . He was not averse to reorganising the dairy industry, but he considered that' they should start with the man who was up against it. He had a number of communications, and all except one were against the Bill. He considered that all the amendments would be like plasters on a wooden leg; they would do neither good nor harm. What was wanted was financial assistance for those who could not meet their bills now. Mr. Savage asked the committee to oppose the Bill./ . ' \ Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Eltham) said ? there was no immediate' need for the < present Bill, as it did not provide financial assistance for the farmers. Thg Bill /.'.would only load them, with further ' The appointment of the Minister as chairman of the commission would have no effect, as other members could override him. He considered the appointment of members for five years without the right of recall was monstrous. He thought that members of the commission should not have the right to occupy any other position, and he asked the Government to hold the Bill over till February, as it was too momentous to be put through on the last day of the session. If the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment he would support it REORGANISATION NECESSARY. Mr. W. J. Pdlson (Co., Stratford) said it was generally agreed that reorganisation was necessary, and the. Bill provided for reorganisation. He thought there .. was need for some such reorganisation as provided in the Bill. He saw no objection to separate boards. The industry’s first call was for immediate relief, but he thought he could say the industry was anxious for a reorganisation. The Bill did not meet with the general disapproval of men in the industry, except those in the Auckland district. The Bill, he thought, was essential to, control marketing and to secure better trading arrangements. Mr. ’W. Nash (Lab., Lower Hutt) thought the amendments' made the position worse than the original Bill. 'Hie executive committee should be subject to the control of Parliament, otherwise it would become a Fascist organisation as known to other countries. The Bill was simply giving power to the Government to delegate power to another body. He was opposed to members being allowed to occupy other positions, he said. Even the farmers’ member should be paid such a sum as would render him " free from any other conflicting interest. Under the present clause Mr. W. Good- ■ fellow, Sir William Hunt or Mr. David Jones could be appointed to the com- ; mission. He asked why the Minister was taking away the power of the board to control the transport of milk and cream. “PLAYTHING OF POLITICS.’’ The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Ind., Wai- ' rarapa) said that since the Dominion failed to find a market for pastoral produce the standard of living of ail people must go down. He was convinced that '■ unless some co-ordination in handling produce took place then the whole thing was- to be made a plaything of politics, as. it had been made and was being made in the House that day. Mr/A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) said that if the Government found it was necessary to postpone the mortgage corporation legislation, which would give immediate financial assistance to farm- ' ers, why not postpone the present Bill so as to give dairy farmers a reasonable opportunity of expressing their opinion on it? Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) considered that a sum of money should be set aside for immediate assistance to farmers. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister of Finance, said that legislation affected only those boards which had legislation affecting their boards. If other boards desired to be brought in that could be d6ne, but it would have to be of their own volition. Was the country in a position to say what or how financial assistance should be provided to give the assistance that was asked for? What happened when the industry was reorganised was another matter. He agreed that the commission’s work was a full-time job. The only way a small man’s interest could be looked after was by the appointment of commissions to have efficient organisation. Many . marketing . problems, such as quantities and quotas, had to be con-

sidered. He thought the position the country was facing was being lost sight of, and in order to give the assistance required it was necessary to have organisation provided in the new Bill. New Zealand’s best interests had not been best served, because she had been hostile to Britain and had not been willing to discuss the matter with her. The present position was not of New Zealand’s own making, but was made by other countries, who were imposing quotas, quantitative regulations and similar things. New Zealand had put herself in a position to get a changed situation. .. ~ Mr. W. A. Veitch (Co., Wanganui) said that if the Government was wise it would draft legislation dealing with financial assistance and reorganisation and submit it to the country to give members an opportunity to consider it. It would enable them to come back to th i* House with definite views. The amendments to the Bill were so objectionable that he did not propose to vote for it. . < Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarmo) said that although the Minister as chairman of the executive commission would provide a connecting link with Parliament, he did not see how his presence would make any difference if the other three members put their heads together against him. „ Mr. H. G. Dickie (Co., Patea) said the industry wanted to know what powers the commission was going to have. The amendments as introduced were the result of representations made by the industry. Was the commission going to be over the dairy division of the - Department of Agriculture?. J, - ..V.. The Government was also to have three Government nominees on the Dairy Board. He thought that was not necessary. He contended that if .the price was to be guaranteed the output would have to be reduced. The Rev. C. Carr (Lab.,- Timaru) said financial assistance and control must go together. The control proposed was not co-operative but corporative, which was very different. QUALIFICATION FOR COMMISSION. , Mr. A. E. Jull (C 0. Waipawa) asked if it was intended that any member of the Meat Board, Dairy Board or other board might be qualified to be a member of the agriculture commission. He contended that the question of marketing was the prime matter before the Dornin-. 1 ion and he asked if it was intended to secure the services of a man of London experience accustomed to handling that class of goods. Mr. J. A. Nash (Co., Palmerston) said it was a matter of necessity that members of the commission should devotetheir full time to the work. He thought the Government should agree to that. Mr. A. Harris (Co., Waitemata) criticised the possibility of a member of an individual board being also a member of tire commission, which would be highly undesirable. . Messrs. Polson and Wilkinson also urged that the commissioners should, not hold other positions. Mr. Wilkinson said he would move an amendment in the direction of making members of the commission, except the Minister of Agriculture, devote their full time to their duty and providing that they should have no business on their own account or any interest in a business affected by the commission. The Hon. C. E. Macmillan, Minister of Agriculture, said he ■ could not accept Mr. amendment as it was too wide. He would rather restore the original clause and he was quite prepared to recommend that the House put that clause back. CLAUSE NOT WIDE ENOUGH. Mr. Nash said the original clause was not wide -enough, as a director of a dairy factory could be a member of the Mr.' Forbes said he knew of members of no board who put private business before that of the board. Mr. Langstone said there were Government directors on the Bank of New Zealand. Mr. Forbes denied that was so and said it would be suicidal for any member of the commission to retain interests in any concern affected by it. Members would be too open to question and their bona tides would be open to question. If the Minister was out-voted or if the members of the commission abused their position and he reported to Cabinet their powers could be taken away by Order-in-Council, so the Minister was allpowerful. The short title was carried by 37 votes to 26. Mr. Macmillan agreed to retain the original sub-clause six of clause three, with a consequential amendment exempt- ' ing the Minister of Agriculture, and Mr. Wilkinson moved an amendment, as previously indicated, to that sub-clause. Mr. Wilkinson’s amendment was lost by 35 votes to 27,. and the original clause as amended was carried. On clause 13 Mr. Stallworthy moved to reduce the number of Government nominees on the Dairy Board to one instead of three. The amendment was lost by 54 votes to seven. The committee stages were completed and the Bill was read a third time and passed.