LEVY ON DAIRY PRODUCE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19940, 26 October 1934, Page 5

LEVY ON DAIRY PRODUCE

MARKETING TO BE REGULATED

WIDE POWERS GRANTED TO COMMISSION

By Telegraph—Press Association

WELLINGTON, October 25. The Agricultural (Emergency Powers) Dili, introduced In the House to-night provides for a levy on dairy produce manufactured for sale whether such produce is subject to the Board’s control or not. The charge shall be fixed by the Board, but shall not exceed the maximum charges that may be prescribed by regulations under the Bill. Differential charges may be prescribed in respect of different kinds of dairy produce and in respect of dairy produce exported from New Zealand and dairy produce intended for consumption in New Zealand. Power is given the Board to appoint instructors in the management of dairies or dairy factories. These officers shall have the powers of inspectors under the Dairy Industry Act, and anyone who obstructs or interferes with them in the exercise of their duty or who fails to comply with their lawful requests shall be liable to the same penalty as if the instructor were an inspector under that Act. In addition to the powers conferred on it by the 1923 Act, the Dairy Board shall have authority to regulate and control the production of dairy produce in New Zealand and the handling, grading, marketing, transport and distribution of dairy produce intended for consumption in New Zealand. Funds for Betterment. The Bill states that there may from time to time be paid out of the Public Works Fur. 1 on such terms and conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe such funds as may be appropriated by Parliament for all or any of the following purposes:— (1) Construction, reconstruction, equipment and improvement of dairy (2) Securing improved conditions in and about dairies. (3) Eradication of disease in dairy herds. . ... (4) Any other purposes for which grants or loans may be found necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the Dairy Commission. In addition to the moneys provided according to the above arrangement, there may be paid out of the Public Works Fund for the year ending March 31, 1935, for the foregoing purposes, a sum not exceeding £500,000. Regulations may be made for the following purposes:— (1) Prescribing the conditions to be observed by persons engaged in the production of milk or cream for sale and, if considered necessary, for the licensing of such persons and of premises where milk or cream is produced. ' (2) For the transport of milk or cream to dairy factories. (3) For licensing dairy factories and prescribing conditions subject to which licenses may be granted, refused, or revoked. (4) For handling or marketing dairy produce in New Zealand or elsewhere. (5) Prescribing the maximum amount of levies that may be imposed on dairy produce intended for consumption in New Zealand and on dairy produce intended to be exported from New Zealand and the methods to be adopted in the collection of such levies. (6) Prescribing the purposes for which the proceeds of such levies shall be applied in furtherance of the interests of the dairy industry.

(7) Any other purpose for. which regulations are contemplated by or may be required to give effect to the Bili.

Executive Commission

An Executive Commission of Agriculture, comprising three members appointed by the Government for five years, is established under the Bill. At least two members shall have been actively engaged as producers in some branch of primary production in the manufacture and marketing of primary products, or in some commercial or other undertaking closely associated with the production, manufacture, export or marketing of primary products. They shall receive such salary and allowances as may be approved by the Governor-General. The functions of the Commission shall be: (1) To co-ordinate the work of the several boards and other authorities exercising powers with respect to any of the primary products of New Zealand.

(2) To exercise any powers that may be transferred to it from other boards. (3) To make such recommendations to the Government as it thinks proper with a view to making of regulations in relation to the production, handling, marketing or export of primary products.

(4) To obtain in such manner as it thinks proper information as to any of the matters mentioned in clause 3 preceding, or otherwise in relation to its functions. (5) Such other functions as may from time lawfully be conferred upon it by regulations under the enabling provisions of the Bill or otherwise. In the exercise of its functions the Commission shall have all the powers of a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

Mr Forbes moved that urgency be accorded the first reading of the Bill, but that was challenged, and a division called for. Urgency was accorded by 33 votes to 24.

Industry Should be Consulted.

Mr A. M. Samuel (Ind., Thames) said he was apprehensive concerning the Bill. He thought that if the first reading was passed the remaining stages would be rushed through next week. That was the first time the industry had been completely changed without the industry being consulted. The proposed Board had greater powers than Ministers, and he wanted to know what would be the annual cost. The Board would have powers greater than those given to any other industry. The primary producer should have an opportunity of closely examining the proposals in the Bill. It seemed as if the producers were not going to get the assistance they were screaming for, but be faced with restrictions that would hamper their operations. He sought an assurance that the Bill would not be sledgehammered through the House. If it was not given he would feel bound to oppose the first reading. Mr Forbes said it had never been the practice of the Government to slog Bills through the House. The Bill was an urgent one. The whole purpose was to do something to improve the marketing of New Zealand produce. It had been said that New Zealand was the world’s worst marketer. The Bill provided for the control of marketing and regulations would be made by the Governor-General-in-Council. He hoped that this would be done this year as there was urgent necessity for taking steps to deal with the position. The Bill was brought down to improve marketing conditions at Home and to seek new markets. Full opportunity would be given to debate the Bill next week. The Bill

was giving effect, with certain modifications, to the recommendations of the Dairy Commission. Mr J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn) said that for six years the industry had been in dire straits, and now the Government was going to teach it to swim. The Bill was brought down because the caucus had said the Government must do something. He said that the Minister of Finance was the man who had done more than anyone else to submarine the orderly marketing of New Zealand’s produce.

Finance More Important.

Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) said that the whole question of dairy farming hinged upon finance. Most dairy farmers bought land at a too great price. The reorganisation of the industry was a secondary matter to saving the dairy farmer financially. Mr W. J. Poison (C., Stratford) said he hoped that the dairying industry would not be turned into a political chopping block. Only about 7 per cent, of the daily farmers were making the industry pay. However, it looked to him like locking the stable door after the horse had gone out. He was sure that the proposals for reorganising the industry were of great value, but he contended that financial assistance should be given to the dairy farmer. It could be done if the Government had the enterprise to tackle the position. He had received messages from all parts of the Dominion urging delay in passing the legislation until they had seen the proposals. Mr R. Semple (Lab.. Wellington East) said that if the marketing proposal was the only thing the Government had to offer the dairy farmer they would find it no solution of the problem. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) said he w’ished to draw attention to a discrepancy in the attitude of the Prime Minister between the dairy industry and the wool farmer. He said the wool farmer was asked to contribute 4d a bale, but the dairy industry was conscripted and it was proposed to set up a board that would supersede every other board in the Dominion. Mr H. G. Dickie (C., Patea) said he hoped the bill would not be unduly rushed, as a meeting of the industry could be held fairly quickly. There was no great urgency for marketing if the proposals of the Commission were to be followed. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) said the whole trouble in the dairy industry was. that the Dairy Control Board was hamstrung by the Minister of Finance and another person. How could marketing get over the quota? What other markets were there? What could the new board do that the other board had not done? Composition of Commission. The Hon. C. E. Macmillan, explaining the measure, said it had been felt that somebody with greater powers than the Dairy Control and the other producers Board was absolutely necessary. It was almost impossible for private persons to make connections outside the Empire, and trade had to be conducted, to be successful, by way of treaty and negotiation between Governments. A supreme authority was needed to send produce where a market was available because an individual farmer could not afford to take the risk. A body that could make contacts with other Governments was necessary. It was necessary to coordinate the Dairy Control Board and the Meat Producers’ Board, and the position resolved itself into the establishment of a marketing commission. The constitution of the Daily Board was altered. In the past it had been a compromise. The dairy farmer felt that he had never had a fair spin, and the Bill would give it to him. Power was given to control the local market and block dairy instruction was also provided. On the new board three representatives would be elected by the dairy companies, one by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company, and three would be appointed by the Government. The measure did not give all the relief asked for, but it gave the dairy farmer a chance to get out of his immediate difficulties. Mr W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) said that there was something to be said for control and co-ordination, but there was no proposal to give the dairy farmer some return for his labour. Mr D. McDougall (Ind., Mataura), asked if, after the first reading was carried, the dairy farmer would be given an opportunity of examining the Bill. He was sure that there would be some objections. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab.. Christchurch East) said he did not think the substitution of one board for another would get the farmer out of his difficulties.

Mr Coates said it was true that some parts of New Zealand were opposed to the Bill and others were in favour of it. He had received many telegrams supporting it. What Parliament had to decide was whether the provisions of the Bill were in the interests of the country and the industry or not. It was not the intention of the Government to hurry the thing through, as a measure of that importance warranted considerable consideration by those concerned, but a crisis had been reached and they had to decide what was best from the immediate point cf view, but they must not forget the long view. Mr Macmillan, in reply, said he had received a message from an organisation representing 12,000 suppliers favouring the proposals. After three hours’ discussion, the Governor-General’s Message was received and the Bill, read a first time.