DAIRY MARKETING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 106, 6 May 1936, Page 9

DAIRY MARKETING

And Guaranteed Prices THE BILL UNDER FIRE DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT (Per Press Association. ) WELLINGTON, May 5. In the House of Representatives this afternoon urgency was an corded the passing of the second reading of the Primary Products Marketing Bill. The motion was opposed by the Opposition but was carried by 48 votes to 15. Air J. Thorn (Govt., Thames) said that the Labour candidates in their election speeches had made it clear that if the Guaranteed Price Bill were passed the produce would Lecome the property of the Government. He alleged that Hon. J. G. Coates, in his speech on the Bill, had been guilty of scaremongering. The Labour Party’s policy had been placed before the country for many years and if the people placed the Labour Party m power, then surely it was ridiculous for the claim made by Air Coates and other Opposition speakers, that the Government had no mandate to put its guaranteed price scheme into operation. Air W. J. Polson (Opp., Stratford) said that the House and country would want to know why the policy contained in the Bill had not been set out by the Labour Party during tihe election. Air Savage should have said that the objective of the Government was straight out socialisation. The Bill was the greatest betrayal of the interests of the farmer that had ever taken place in New Zealand. The word of the Labour Party given during the election had been gone ba*ck on completely. When the country realised that, it would be shocked from the North Cape to the Bluff. He challenged Air Savage to deny that what had been done was the exact opposite of what it was said would be done. Air Savage: No. Farmers are telegraphing approval to me every day. C.W.S. and Marketing Air Polson referred to the inexperience of those who were handling the marketing of New Zealand produce. As an instance, he said the original proposal was to give the Co-operative Wholesale Society of Britain a hand in the marketing of New Zealand produce. The Government did not realise that the C.W.S. was an organisation created to purchase for an enormous clientele cheap goods at a low price. New Zealand wanted to sell high-class produce in the best market it could. Mr Polson said that if the Government were going to fix the guaranteed price on the average of the last eight, nine, or ten years, the price would be no better than was being received to-day. The farmer would find his costs gone up. Labour costs would be up a penny a lb. and indirect costs must go up. Nobody could tell how much, but they must go up substantially. The farmer would be worse off under the guaranteed price than he was at present. He did not think the Mmiiter’s crude proposition would be well received when it was placed before the British Government. For years past the Government had been trying to execute trade agreements and they knew Britain had her own difficulties. She had to look after her customers all over tlie world and could not make fish of one and flesh of another. She could not make bilateral agreements. The Government’s policy would reduce the dairy farmer to the status of the lowest-paid worker in the industry. It would wreck New Zealand overseas markets and if persisted in would bring New Zealand’s whole economic system down like a house on fire. Air D. McDougall (Indept., Mataura) said the Bill would provide something” for the wife of the dairy farmer and very often she had the hardest job of the lot. If the Government attempted to make the dairy fanner’s position better and brighter that was better than the Government that sat down and did nothing. If labour costs did go up that went back indirectly to the farmer and he was the gainer. Mr D. Barnes (Gov., Waitaki) contended that the farmers must be treated as producers, not speculators. If the farmer’s income couid be stabilised it would go a long way towards stabilising all incomes and while overseas prices should be considered in the new scheme they should not be the determining factor. He could not understand farmers opposing the Bill. No business man would oppose guaranteed prices for ills goods. He thought that through the Bill the farmer would lose the worry and uncertainty which was so much in evidence to-day. Hon. J. G. Cobbe (o<pp., Oroua) said it was well known that the present Government held office chiefly a-s a result of promises made to the farmers, particularly those engaged in the dairying industry. He contended that the Government should make Known the price it was going to fix. Prices undoubtedly would rise in the cities and inflation would occur under the Bill. He sympathised with the Minister, who was on the horns of a dilemma and waiting for something to turn up. He agreed that the farmer should receive full prices for his produce, but was opposed to fictitious prices. He thought the people most vitally affected by the Bill should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the measure. The farmers would be disappointed and disillusioned and would find that they had been misled by the figures mentioned bv the Minister.

More Socialism Wanted Air Ormond Wilson (Guv., Rangitikei) said there was no shortage of goods and plenty of room for expansion. The trouble was distribution, which was the major problem of the world and the problem with which New Zealand was immediately concerned. He agreed that the Bill was a socialistic one and thought that the best method of implementing it was going further in socialism. He thought that at the end of three years the people’s cry would be, “If that is Socialism, let us have some more of it.” When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m., Air. Wilson said that the Bill would assist to a great extent to bring economic stability to the Dominion, and under the Bill they would be able to give greater encouragement to the quality of produce. It also provided for more economic distribution in New Zealand. The Bill would enable New Zealand to obtain the best price available on the open market. He thought there was no question but that the genuine distributive firms in Tooley Street who handled New Zealand produce favoured the Bill. They knew it was in the interests of the English consumer and the New Zealand producer. He defended the Co-operative Workers’ Society of Britain and thought it would serve New Zealand well in the future as in the past in distributing New Zealand produce. He thought they would be able to prove to all those who were not prejudiced that the measure before the House and the ones following it on the same lines were definitely in the interests of New Zealand and that the socialb.t principles they embodied were the only principles which would bring some solution to the great economic problem of the present day—tint of poverty in the midst of plenty “Mr. R. A. Wright (Ind.. Wellington Suburbs) reminded Mr. Wilson that the Tooley Street distributors were a powerful body. It remained to be seen if they were in favour of the Bill, They were not philanthropists but were keen businessmen. Humanitarianism was not allowed to interfere with business. New Zealand would have to be very careful because of the power they possess el. The Bill, he contended, did a very grave injustice to one section of the people in New Zealand —those engaged m the export trade. Their employees would be dismissed and what would become of them? He thought the number affected would be 160 or 170 and as they piobauiy had dependents, a conservative estimate would put the dumber at | about 320. He alleged that the dice was definitely against the city people and that at the next election the results would depend on the dairy fanners’ votes. The Bill was directly oppose! to the interests of his constitue its and was definitely class legislation. Hon. J. A. Lee said the Bill was not going to give a knockout blew to any linn giving service to the community, but it was going to give a knockout blow to the speculator. It was not claimed that the Bill was the last word in marketing, but it would be of great benefit to the dairy farmer. Even Raimers’ organisations m Air. Coates’ own electorate had telegraphed the Prime Minister expressing approval of the Bill. To-day hall the oenelit of the farmer’s labour was taken from him ■by tne speculator. The Government wanted tu break away from the world price level and give the farmer in New Zealand the wherewithal to enable him lo obtain the necessaries of lixe in New Zealand. Members spuke of the influence of Tooley {Street and said the merchants would go to Japan or some other place for butter, but they forgot that New Zealand had a great debt to Britain. in that connection he thought that interest rates were too i' high. Perhaps one day he Government would go tu Britain and ask her tu give New Zealand as good a deal aa she gave the French and Italians, Cost In Depression. Mr. H. 8. 8. Kyle (Opp., Riccarton) claimed that the last Government hal saved the dairy industry by raising tne exchange. He asked how they would carry un guaranteed prices if butter dropped to 8d per lb. If they had another depression like the last it would mean the socialisation of New Zea land’s produce at a cost of £3O,UOU,O(Kj a year. The Government was gambling with the people’s produce. Now that the Budget was balanced the peopre were looking for a reduction in taxation, but the people were being taxed out of sight to find the guaranteed price sugp<ted under the Bui. Air. Kyle proceeded to refer to guaranteed wheat prices, but was ruled out of order. A point of order was raised, members of the Opposition contending that the scope of the Bill was sufficient!} wide to cover all primary produce, but the Government members said that additional legislation would be needed to fix a guaranteed price for anything other than dairy products. The Speaker said that discussion was fairly wide but the Bill dealt with dairy produce. Discussion should refer to that. (Proceeding.)