POWERS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19945, 1 November 1934, Page 5

POWERS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION

EXCEPTION TAKEN By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, October 31. The second reading debate on the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill was resumed in the House to-day. Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) said the Bill put extra burdens on the industry, which was a mistake. Money was also to be taken from the Public Works Fund for the development of the industry, and that would be an addition to the country's debt. What factories were to be improved and in what way was the money to be spent in improving dairies? The proposals in the Bill would never save the farmer, who should be rehabilitated financially first, and then improvements could be considered. He was opposed to the adjournment of the House till the problem had been dealt with. He contended that there should be no debt on the land if farmers were to compete with other countries. He considered that the Government would make a fatal mistake if it went ahead with the proposal to give such tremendous powers to three men. Mr D. MacDougall (Ind., Mataura) objected to an extension of time being granted to Mr Wilkinson, and said he would do so to all speakers . except Ministers and the Leader and DeputyLeader of the Opposition, as he objected to the waste of time. The Rev. Clyde Carr (Lab., Timaru) said it was credit that farmers needed, and the banks could create that. The Bill set up a dictatorship. He considered that members of the House jvere capable of hearing evidence and making recommendations to the Government. There was no need for Royal Commissions. He also contended that the country should create its own credit and not go cap in hand to outside countries. Ministerial Responsibility. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Ind. C., Wairarapa) said the dairy industry had been built up by co-operative effort, and that co-operation should not be destroyed. Outside the dairy factories, however, that co-operation ceased to exist. He criticised the actions of Mr W. Goodfellow in connection with the Dairy Industry Commission, and said it had taken too much notice of bovine tuberculosis. That reference would be seized on by overseas competitors. He thought that a large part of the country was in agreement with what had been said from the Labour benches in opposition to the industry being handed over to a commission. He felt that there was a ministerial responsibility in connection with the industry, but felt that the establishment of a supreme council should not take the responsibility off the House.

Mr McDougall said he was going to vote for the amendment as he did not think the Bill would be of any use to the dairy farmers, who should be consulted before anything affecting the industry was done. The first thing that had to be done was to raise the consumers’ purchasing power. The trouble with the dairy farmer was the high value of land. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said he could see nothing in the Bill or in the report that was going to give immediate relief to the dairy farmer. Views of Mr Coates. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said he did not think he could remember an instance when from one end of the country to the other a report had been received with such acclamation. The Bill closely followed the detailed recommendations of the Commission. The Commission said the position amounted to a crisis in the industry, and the measures to meet it had met with disapproval. Members had to make up their minds whether they would leave things alone or take steps to meet the position which had arisen overseas. From North Cape to Bluff newspapers welcomed the Commission’s report and said that Parliament must not move from Wellington before acting on its recommendations, yet when a Bill was introduced a different story was told. New Zealand had been forced to act by the British policy. It had either to attempt to organise the British market or follow a policy of doing nothing. Could New Zealand ignore the position Britain had placed before it? Were they to co-operate with Britain and other countries? To arrange trade agreements a co-ordin-ation board was necessary. It would be one man’s job to investigate markets. How could the Government complete arrangements unless it had the complete co-operation of all the exporting industries? The Government had been charged with giving complete powers to a triumvirate, but the same was said when the Meat Board and other boards were established, and what powers had they had? The powers provided could not be used unless the Government gave permission. He thought that too much fuss was made about the Council of Agriculture. The minister could not handle it, and he thought it better to eliminate politics as far as possible. The Council was really only an advisory board because the powers provided were latent. The first duty of the Council would be to find how far it could assist individual boards and co-ordinate their desires. Regarding internal organisation, New Zealand herds were less affected with tuberculosis than other countries, but should they be satisfied with that or should they go further and be able to say that they had the purest product in the world? There were areas in New Zealand where the water supply was unsatisfactory, and the farmer could not improve matters if he was without money. The Bill provided that money could be advanced him. The Government was not going to put an extra load on the farmer but an increased price could be looked for if the quality was improved. One of the first things tackled would be overseas marketing. He thought it would be wrong for the Government to fix the rate of interest; he thought the rate to be paid should be the market rate. He would not think that fixation of prices would be for the benefit of the industry. He hoped before the legislation was passed the Government would have the co-op-eration of the investing public. How could they subsidise farmers and at the same time talk of reducing mortgages and interest rates? The first thing was to get down permanent charges. The Government had decided that farmers should be assisted in regard to a rebate on rates. The Government must stand by the industry and would not see it go under. “Hysterical.” Mr H. G. Dickie (C- Patea) suggested that if they were to have a supreme council of three, the Meat and Dairy Boards should be reduced to five members. Mr W. A. Veitch (Ind. Wanganui) characterised the Bill as hysterical legislation based on panic which was not justified. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Lab. Auckland Suburbs) said that farmers in his district were greatly alarmed. They viewed the setting up of a board which

had almost dictatorial powers most seriously, Mr A. J. Stallworthy (C. Eden) said the Government itself should use the powers which it was delegating to the Board. He thought the House should know* the personnel of the triumvirate before it would be justified in passing legislation authorising the setting up of that supreme body. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at midnight.