DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23259, 21 July 1945, Page 4

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

| Extra Payments For Produce

Debate On Marketing Department (N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 20. The principal business of the House of Representatives this I morning was a debate on the an- ! nua.l report of the Marketing Department, during which much difference of opinion about the extra payments for produce was again evident. A number of questions were asked before the debate commenced and in reply to an urgent question by Mr A. 5. Sutherland (National, Haurakl), the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. B. Roberts) said there would be sufficient seed potatoes for the coming season, but at the present time stocks were in the South Island and the shipping shortage and recent storms had interfered with distribution to growers in the North Island. All available shipping space would be used to make supplies available to northern growers. Mr K. J. Holyoake (National, Pahiatua), opening the debate on marketing. criticised the practice of subsidising farmers from funds received from Britain. Reimbursement of Subsidies The Hon. W. Nash said that the lump sum payments from Britain had been paid in recognition of increased costs, and as the subsidies were to meet extra production costs the Britisli payments were rightly used to reimburse the payment of subsidies. The meat producers had agreed to the stabilisation of meat prices in New Zealand, and the extra payment of 15 per cent for wool was not in recognition of increased costs to growers. If it had been paid to growers, other primary producers would have claimed a similar increase and stabilisation would have been upset. Mi- w. J- Broadfoot (National, Waitemo) claimed that by underpaying farmers and by the exchange manipulation the Government was directing between £11,000,000 and £15,000,000 a year into its own coffers. The Minister of Supply (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said the agreement had been drafted to provide for future additional payments from Britain and provision for their disposal. Government Accused Mr W- A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) said the Government laid down the terms of the agreement and said to farmers "take it or leave it," and now had the temerity to claim that farmers had agreed to what was being done. It was now apparent that the Government knew lump sum payments were to be made but had kept the fact from farmers when making the agreement. The Government could not face farmers and say they had been given a fair deal. The Hon. B. Roberts said farmers had been well treated and Mr W. Goodfellow had gone to London to watch their interests. The Marketing Department had kept down charges on marketing farmers’ produce compared with those ruling under private enterMr W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) said Mr Goodfellow had gone to London under a veil of secrecy and could not report to farmers. He asked if the Minister was going to lift the veil. Mr Sheat claimed that farmers received subsidies to enable them to stand up to the artificial economy in the rest of the community, and could do without subsidies better than others. The debate was continued until the luncheon adjournment.