LABOUR AMENDMENT DEFEATED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19946, 2 November 1934, Page 7

LABOUR AMENDMENT DEFEATED

VOTING FAIRLY CLOSE By Telegraph —Pres9 Association WELLINGTON, November 1. The second reading debate on the Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill was resumed in the House to-day. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should be sent Home to negotiate with the authorities there. Mr J. Hargest (C., Invercargill) said it was difficult to see the reason for the opposition to the Bill. If a guaranteed price were given production would be stimulated and the trouble with the already glutted markets aggravated. He agreed that it was necessary that there should be some co-ordination to study marketing problems. He believed that had something been done a year ago to restrict exports to Britain the net income to-day would have been greater. He thought that something in the nature of a quota was inevitable unless agreements could be reached. He thought that the dairy farmer should realise that any expenditure incurred under the present Bill to assist him must place a burden on the general taxpayer, and he should therefore submit to some direction from the Government and those elected to the respective boards. It was disappointing to find him, when efforts were being made to assist him, trying to call the tune. Mr C. H. Clinkard (C., Rotorua) said the Government had been doing its best to keep export producers in operation and for our country to lessen production without a reduction by other countries would be suicidal. They must keep up production and control marketing. He considered that the supreme council should not be divorced from Governmental control, and a Minister of the Crown should be a member of it. An Optimistic View. Mr A. Stuart (C., Rangitikei) said that there were many other people in financial difficulties. Many business people in the cities were just as much up against it as the dairy farmer. The position of all sections of the community had to be considered. From the speeches made in the House one would think that the industry was in most desperate circumstances and the country about to crash, but he took a much more optimistic view. The percentage needing financial assistance was not so great as many speakers made out. Then again, some farmers were struggling even in good times, and there were some farmers beingkept on the land who would be much better off it. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (C., Waitomo) said the report made one wonder whether New Zealand was co-opera-tive or otherwise. He thought that the Danish people had given a lead to the world in that matter. He felt that in New Zealand co-operation was not working along the right lines, and that applied to other industries as well as the dairy industry. He wondered what would be the next industry to lay its troubles at the door of the Government, and he thought that there would soon be so many crying children that they would have to call a halt somewhere. He did not like giving the -powers provided to supermen because 'he did not see the supermen in the j country. He considered that supreme power should be in the House, and he thought they should follow the example of Australia and appoint three Ministers to be the co-ordinating authority. Bovine Tuberculosis. Referring to bovine tuberculosis, he said that much could be done to reduce the incidence of that disease. The United States since 1918 had reduced the percentage from 2.4 to 1.7, which indicated that the problem could be handled. It had been said that a large number of animals would have to be destroyed, but people should not be exposed to the danger of affected herds. Mr D. McDougall (Ind., Mataura) adopted the same attitude as yesterday, and opposed extensions of time for speakers, but he was asleep when the bell was rung on Mr Broadfoot, and the speaker was accorded an extension to the great amusement of the House. A division was called for on Mr Savage’s amendment, after nearly 12 hours’ debate. The amendment was lost by 37 votes to 29. The division list was:—

Against the Amendment. Ansell Jull Bitchener Kyle Broadfoot McLeod Burnett McSkimming Campbell Macmillan Clinkard Macpherson Coates Massey, J. N. Cobbe Massey, W. W. Dickie Murdoch Field Nash, J. A. Forbes Ngata Hamilton Reid Hargest Smith Hams Stewart Hawke Stuart Healy Sykes Henare Te Tomo Holland Young Holyoake For the Amendment. Armstrong Munro Atmore O’Brien Barnard Parry Carr Poison Chapman Richards Coleman Samuel Fraser Savage Jones Semple Jordan Stallworthy Langstone Tirikatene Lee Veitch McCombs Webb McDougall Wilkinson McKeen Wright i Mason PAIRS Against the Amendment. Connolly Endean Ransom Linklater Bodkin For the Amendment. Nash, W. Sullivan Howard Rushworth Schramm Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central) continued the debate. He said that a commission was not needed to tell the country that 50 per cent, of the dairy farmers could not meet their commitments. He claimed that the Labour Party for years had been showing the Government where the country was heading. He asked if the Government was sincere in its statement that the powers contained in the Bill were latent. Why, in that case, did they want the Bill? Mr Parry charged the Government with inconsistency. He said that when it raised the exchange, wealthy woolgrowers, some of whom had held back wool for three or four years, received the benefit of that increase as well as the small man. Yet the Government would not subsidise or guarantee a price to the dairy farmer, stating that the benefit would be received by some who did not need it as well as those who did. Much Misunderstanding. Mr Forbes said he thought that much of the opposition to the Bill was due to a misunderstanding of what was

proposed. He said it was not possible for the Government to provide the large subsidies that would be required as that would react in other ways. The criticism levelled against the Government was that it had failed to do the right thing at once. Some people had the idea that the supreme council would be a sort of Mussolini and take charge of everything, but it was nothing of the sort. It would explore new markets and work in close co-opera-tion with the boards. It had also been said that it had great powers, but they could be used only in case of emergency. What was proposed was the linking up of the activities of all the produce boards. If they then had to meet regulation, they could do so in an organised fashion. Marketing. Mr Forbes said that New Zealand was obliged to put the machinery dealing with the export of produce in order. He thought that individual boards within limits had done good work, but there had been limits. Under the new system when the Government had spent money and had secured a new market it could be assured that the market would be taken advantage of. Marketing conditions now had changed. Marketing now was a matter for negotiations between Governments, not between organisations, and the Government had to take a more active interest to equip itself with machinery to enable it to come to the best decision. Adverse trade balances were also taking a prominent part in trade to-day, and New Zealand had to take cognisance of that and act in the same way as other governments. The payment of subsidies would only throw a greater burden on the taxpayers. The low price recently obtained for New Zealand butter, he was informed, was due to it having been lying in store for a long time. When it was opened up it was apparent that it was stale. He had been told when in Glasgow that .merchants perhaps received two or three consignments of good butter and then perhaps received some that was obviously stale. There was room for great improvement at the London end. The present Act was a genuine effort to improve the position, and the Government would back it up if given the power by Parliament. Mr J. A. Lee (Lab.. Grey Lynn) said that if anything was to be done for the dairy industry it had to be done by Parliament itself. The matter should not be delegated to a board which might be an excuse for doing nothing. He said that a guaranteed price would benefit not only the farmer but would give a fillip to business, as the money paid in the country would be spent in the country.

Better Quality Wanted. Mr J. A. Nash (C., Palmerston) asked what was the alternative to, the Bill before the House. Were they prepared to leave the various independent boards as they were and not have them co-ordinated? In the face of the Commission’s report they could not refuse to act. There was nothing in the Bill which could lessen the rights of Parliament. Referring to the margin between New Zealand and Danish butter he said that Danish butter was sold fresh whereas New Zealand was frozen. The outside was often streaky and had to be cut away. What was wanted was not a subsidy but better quality and better marketing conditions. If the proposed executive of three was objected to, he suggested that the Minister might be made chairman with a deputy-chairman. The Minister would remain answerable to Parliament. The Bill as framed, he contended, should go through. Mr R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs) asked what was the use of increasing production if they could not consume it. New Zealand’s problem was to find new markets. Mr Kyle’s Suggestion. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (C., Riccarton) said he believed that a large part of the Commission’s report was panicky and would do harm in the Old Country. He contended that New Zealand had far less tuberculosis in its herds than England, and less than any other country. The Commission's figures were exaggerated, and if exaggerated in that aspect were probably exaggerated in others. He hoped that the Government would not rush headlong into action without consulting the industry. If. as the Prime Minister said, the Imperial Government would deal only with the New Zealand Government, what was the use of setting up another Board that would not be recognised by another Government? He suggested that instead of having a supreme council of three the council should consist of the chairmen of the various produce Boards, presided over by the Minister.

Mr P. Lye (C., Waikato) explained that he had been unable to vote on Mr Savage’s amendment as he was engaged on a Parliamentary Committee, but he would have voted against the amendment. He asked for the reason of the differences in price of New Zealand and Danish butter, and said he wondered if during the last 10 years anything had been done to cultivate the good will of those who marketed New Zealand produce. He thought that the policy of the old Board was irritating and at times mischievous, and he thought the new Board would benefit from the mistakes of the old Board. Advocate of Private Enterprise. Mr H. M. Campbell (C., Hawke’s Bay) criticised the number of boards that were being set up, and said that the -early settlers made progress by their own push. From the first shipment of frozen produce New Zealand had progressed steadily by private enterprise, and he thought that greater progress would be made by private enterprise than by boards. Depressions occurred periodically and the country had recovered from them. He believed that the country would recover from the present one, though it was taking longer than the others. A prosperous dairy industry had been built up by local merchants in conjunction with Tooley Street, and he believed that had that arrangement been allowed to continue the country would not be in the mess it was.

Mr Campbell contended that rates for the upkeep of roads should be removed from the farmer and that cost placed on petrol. That would give considerable relief. They should also endeavour to get on side with Tooley Street. (Left Sitting.)