PARLIAMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19953, 10 November 1934, Page 21

PARLIAMENT

BUSY DAY IN THE HOUSE NINE BILLS PASSED By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, November 9. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.m. Mr H. G. R. Mason gave notice of his intention to introduce the Auckland Electric Power Board Amendment Bill. The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill and the Local Legislation Bill were put through Committee, read a third time and passed. The Agriculture (Emergency Powers) Bill was considered in Committee. The Hon. C. E. Macmillan introduced a number of amendments, the principal Df which was for increasing the membership of the Agriculture Commission to four, and appointing the Minister chairman. On the short title, Mr M. J. Savage said he could not see any alteration in the principle at all. It was simply following the example of the Unemployment Board. The Minister would never occupy the chair; the deputychairman would be able to wander round the country as he liked. He was not averse to reorganising the dairy industry, but he considered they should start with the man who was up against it. He had had a number of communications, all except one against the Bill. He hoped the Bill, although it apparently satisfied the Coalition caucus, would not satisfy the House. He considered that all amendments would be like a plaster on a wooden leg—do neither good nor harm. What was wanted was financial assistance for those who could not meet their bills now. Mr Savage asked the Committees to oppose the Bill. “No Immediate Need.” Mr C. A. Wilkinson said there was no immediate need for the present Bill, as it did not provide for financial assistance for the farmer. The Bill would only load them up v/ith further troubles. The appointment of the Minister as chairman of the Commission would have no effect, as other members could override him. He considered that the appointment of members for five years, without right of recall, was monstrous. He thought members of the Commission should not have the r ight to occupy any other position. 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. Mr W. J. Poison said it was generally agreed that reorganisation was necessary, and the Bill provided for reorganisation. He thought there was necessity for some such reorganisation as provided in the Bill. He saw no objection to separate Boards before action was taken. It' was a definite move for co-ordination among those boards. The industry’s first call was for immediate relief, but he thought he could say the industry was anxious for 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 a better trading arrangement.

Mr W. Nash thought the amendments made the position worse than the original Bill. The Commission should be subejct to the control of Parliament, otherwise it became a Fascist organisation as known in other countries. The Bill was simply giving power to the Government to delegate power to another body. He opposed members being allowed to occupy other positions. Even the farmers’ member should be paid such a sum as to render him free from any other conflicting interest. Under the present clause, Mr W. Goodfellow, Sir William Hunt or Mr David Jones could be appointed to the Commission. He asked why the Minister was taking away the power of the Board to control the transport of milk and cream.

The Hon. A. D. McLeod said once the Dominion failed to find a market for its pastoral produce, the standard of living of all people of the Dominion must go down. He was convinced that unless some co-ordination of handling produce took place the whole thing was to be made the plaything of politics, as it had been made, and was being made in the House that day. Mr A. J. Stallworthy said if the Government found it necessary to postpone the Mortgage Corporation legislation, which would give immediate financial assistance to farmers, why not postpone the present Bill so as to give the dairy farmers a reasonable opportunity to express an opinion on it. Mr H. T. Armstrong considered that a sum of money should be set aside for immediate assistance to the farmer.

Marketing Problems. Mr Coates said the legislation affected only those Boards which had legislation affecting their Boards. If other Boards desired to be brought in, that could be done, but it would have to be of their own volition. Was the country in a position to say what or how financial asssitance should be provided to give assistance that was asked. For what would happen when the industry was reorganised was another matter. He agreed that the Commission’s work was a time job. The only way the small man’s interest could be looked after was by the appointment of a commission to have efficient organisation. Many marketing problems, such as quantities and quotas, had to be considered. 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 an organisation provided in the 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 meet the changed situation. Mr W. A. Veitch said if the Government was wise it would draft legislation dealing with financial assistance and reorganisation, and submit it to the country and give members an opportunity to consider it, to enable them to come back to the House with definite views. Mr F. Langstone said although the Minister, as chairman of the Commission, would provide the connecting link with Parliament, he did not see how his presence would make any difference if the other three members put their together against him.

Mr H. G. Dickie 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? The Government was also to have three Government nominees on the Dairy Board. He thought that not necessary. He contended that if a price was to be guaranteed the output would have to be reduced. The Rev Clyde Carr said that cial assistance and control must go together. The control proposed was not co-operative, but corporative, which was different. Membership of Commission. Mr A. E. Jull asked if it was intended that any member of the Meat Board, Dairy Control Board or other Board might become a member of the Agriculture Commission. He contended that the question of marketing was the prime matter before the Dominion. He also 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 said it was a matter of necessity that members of the Commission should devote their full time to the work. He thought that the Government should agree to that. Mr A. Harris criticised the possibility of a member of an individual Board being also a member of the Commission. That would be highly undesirable. Mr Poison and Mr Wilkinson also urged that the Commissioners should not hold other positions. Mr Wilkinson said that he would move an amendment in the direction of making members of the Commission, except the Minister of Agriculture, devote their full time to the work and provide that they should have no business on their own account or any interest in a business affected by the Commission. Mr Macmillan said he would not accept Mr Wilkinson’s amendment as it was too wide. He would rather restore the original clause. He was prepared to recommend the House to put that clause back. Mr Nash said that the original clause was not wide enough, as a director of a dairy factory could be a member of the Commission. Mr Forbes said he did not think the members of any Board would put private business before that of the Board. Mr F. Langstone: The Government directors on the Bank of New Zealand. Mr Forbes denied that that was so, and said it would be suicidal for any member of the Commission to retain an interest in any concern affected by it. The members would be too open to question. Their bona fides would be open to question. If the Minister was outvoted or if the members of the Commission abused their position and he reported to the Cabinet their powers could be taken away by Order-in-Council, so the Minister was allpowerful. Measure Passed. The short title was carried by 37 votes to 26. Mr Macmillan agreed to retain the original sub-clause 6 of clause 3 with a consequential amendment exempting 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 A. J. 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 7. The Committee stages were completed, and the Bill read a third time and passed. The Cinematograph Films Amendment Bill was put through Committee, read a third time, and passed. The Companies (Bondholders Incorporation) Bill was introduced by Go-vernor-General’s Message and read a first time. The Thames Borough Commissioner Amendment Bill, the Woodlands Drainage Board (Rating) Validation Bill, the Noxious Weeds Amendment Bill, the Auckland Transport Board Empowering Bill, the Wellington City Empowering Bill and the Native Purposes Bill were put through their remaining stages and passed. The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m. till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.