AGRICULTURE BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19944, 31 October 1934, Page 8

AGRICULTURE BILL

CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE VIEWS OP MEMBERS V. By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, October 30. In moving the second reading of the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill in the House to-day, the Hon. C. E. MacMillan emphasised the necessity for some action on the part of the Government. He said that the report was a most valuable document and the thanks of the community were due to the Commission for its services. However, even without the Commission’s report it would have been incumbent on the Government to introduce some legislation to deal with the marketing of dairy produce. The Bill, as well as largely giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission, also gave effect to some recommendations of the conference of the dairy industry. The authorities contained under the present Control Board Acts did not contain the powers necessary to deal with existing problems. It had been found that it was impossible for private individuals to open trade with other countries and it was necessary that the Government should undertake that work. The Executive Commission of Agriculture would explore new markets for New Zealand’s dairy produce. The Canadians at present did not eat lamb. It was thought that they might be taught to do so, and a market found for New Zealand lamb. He reviewed the history of the Dairy Control Board, and said the industry had lost confidence in the board and wanted it reconstituted. He thought the one proposal in the Bill which would do the most general good was that the Government would find money from the Consolidated Fund to develop new markets. Farm dairy instruction had been asked for by the industry for some time, and dairy instruction at factories would be part of the duties of-the new board. The proposals would go a long way to improving the quality of the Dominion’s produce. He was unable to say at present what rate of interest would be charged on loans to farmers for improvement purposes. Labour Leader’s Views. Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition said it appeared as if the Commission had overlooked the outstanding influence of machine production. While the machine had multiplied many times in recent years the amount of goods for sale, it had at the same time displaced purchasers of goods. There was something wrong with the means of production in New Zealand. It was difficult to believe that the difference in price between Danish and New Zealand butter was due to the difference in quality. The trouble was that people Hid not have the purchasing power. The Commission said thev must abandon the traditional view of the United Kingdom as a bottomless market, but no great fundamental change from the old system of production and distribution had been recommended. It suggested ways and means for getting a fraction more out of the existing order of things, but it could not be done. The idea that they could continue by the aid of the machine and science to increase production and allow purchasing power to remain stationary was shattered for all time and was a fundamental error which must be corrected before they could emerge from the present chaotic state of things. Regarding the development of markets Mr Savage said that the Commission overlooked the fundamental truth that the foundation of the existing market as well as the market of the future must be laid in New Zealand by increased purchasing power. He contended that the raising of the exchange which limited New Zealand’s purchase of British goods was play-

ing a major part in New Zealand’s disadvantage as a seller in the British market. The fall in prices was also due to the reduced purchasing power of the British people whose weekly wages bill was £11.500,000 below 1920. The development of a market in the East bristled with difficulties, the chief of which was the danger of merely transferring part of the Dominion’s present trade with Britain to the lower standard countries of the East which would be to New Zealand’s disadvantage. The Commission stated that the frequent transfer of properties from 1918 onwards was accompanied by inflation of land values and consequently of the mortgage load. In view of those inflationary practices the continued deflationary policy of the Government could have only one result, namely, bankrupety for thousands. Guaranteed Prices. Referring to guaranteed prices, Mr Savage said it seemed strange that in a country which guaranteed the salaries and wages of a large section of the community they should find it impossible to guarantee an income in sympathetic relationship to the services rendered by the primary producers. It was quite clear that unless farmers received some .guarantee on that basis they and all others would soon be reduced to the living standards of their overseas competitors. Guaranteed prices and wages would involve the Dominion in complete control of the money system, but it was well that the problem should be attacked in the open and at once. In view of the Commission’s warning regarding urgency for the relief of farmers, Parliament should not adjourn until at least temporary financial relief had been provided for those in difficulties.

Opposition's Policy. The Labour party would introduce the following methods to maintain and extend the dairy industry: (D Guaranteed price for butterfat. (2) Security of tenure to farmers competently using their land. (3) A readjustment of mortgages and land costs on the basis of guaranteed prices. _ . (4) Negotiated agreements with Britain and other countries for the marketing of dairy produce with reciprocal contracts for the importation of goods which cannot be economically produced in the Dominion. With the substantial assistance which must be given to farmers, wages and salaries must be restored to higher levels. It was only from the increased incomes of the rank and file of the people that increased prices or subsidies could be paid. He criticised the setting up of an Executive Commission of Agriculture which would be a miniature dictatorship and would receive substantial salaries. Mr Savage moved as an amendment: “That the House refuses to give a second reading to a Bill which fails to make provision for immediate financial assistance to the dairy industry. Immediate Relief Necessary Mr W. J. Poison (C., Stratford) said that he was very much in agreement with the Bill. If the Bill went no further than to provide a marketing authority, he could see no reason why the industry could not appoint a representative to that authority and have co-operation right up to the peak. He could see no objection to Government appointees if the country was to assist development by giving large sums of money. He was doubtful whether control should be in the hands of a nominative board or in the hands of men appointed by the industry itself. Parliament had been told that Britain would not make an agreement with jne Dominion, that it would nor make with all the other Dominions, but that was not correct. Britain had recently entered into a bilateral agreement with Canada for the shipment of hogs till 1937. He was convinced that markets could be opened up with many parts of the world. The troubles that had arisen in the industry had arisen since the State interfered. Before that it went along smoothly. He wondered what would happen to the

small farm scheme in the light of the report. The first job of Parliament was to succour these men who were right up against it. He suggested that repayable advances should be made to the dairy farmer, the loan to be repaid when the price of butterfat rose above a certain level. The Bill did not provide for immediate relief which, in his opinion, was absolutely necessary. Mr W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) said the dairy industry would not have been a quarter of its present size but for the assistance provided by the Government through Slate advances and other channels. “Not a Ray of Hope” Mr A. M. Samuel (Ind.. Thames) said he could see no ray of hope for the dairy industry in the Bill. He hoped the measure would be withdrawn, as it would be of little use. He claimed that nothing more revolutionary had ever been introduced in the house than that Bill, and he believed that the Government would withdraw Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) said Mr Poison had damned the Bill with faint praise. He wondered how Mr Poison was going to vote on the amendment. Mr Poison: I am going to vote for the amendment. Mr Barnard emphasised the fact that financial aid for the dairy farmer was necessary. He thought that Labour s plan was better than Mr Poison’s in that it did not involve a heavy interest bin. . ~ The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.45 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. to-morrow. DUNEDIN. October 30. The Chamber of Commerce telegraphed to Mr Forbes and local members of Parliament in connection with the Dairy Commission’s report, protesting against the proposed legislation appointing three Government nominees with authority to control and levy primary industries, also urging the postponement of legislation until next session, to enable the Commission's report to be considered by all affected.