DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15322, 24 August 1923, Page 5

DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

BILL BEFORE HOUSE. CASE FOR COMPULSION. PROPOSED PLEBISCITE. By Telegraph.—Special to Times. WELLINGTON, Thursday. The debate on the second rending of the Dairy Export Control Bill was taken to-day. Sir J. P. Luke (Wellington North) said he had been petitioned by over 100 prominent business men in Wellington to oppose the Bill which, with the i upulsory clauses, might place New Zealand at a disadvantage in comparison with other countries exporting the same produce. Now that the Government was assuming control of one combined section of the community, it was quite possible that with a fall in prices it might be asked to foot a fairly heavy bill. Meat control had proved fairly successful, but the dairy industry was not in the same position, and should have freedom of action. In view of the many small cooperative concerns and the varied quality of their product, the proposal would disturb the markets at Home. “I oppose the Government being associated with trusts and combines,” concluded Sir John. “This is the second step in that direction. It is quite comprehensible that farmers should be in favour of the Bill, minus its compulsory clauses, but I look on the Bill as fraught with most dangerous consequences.” Good Results Anticipated. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. W. Nosworthy) said that' the Bill was moulded on the Meat Control Bill, which had proved quite satisfactory, and the same result was anticipated in this case. He referred to the report o£ the Linlithgow Committee on Imperial Meat Co-operation; as cabled, which showed that while the Government was' accused of Bolshevism, etc., the most conservative of Governments, the Imperial Government, had come to the conclusion that the whole system of supply within the Empire should be re-moulded. He referred to the constitution of the Board as laid down in the Bill, and proceeded to explain the other clauses. All doubt as to’the terms of contracts would, he said, be removed. The Bill had been so widely discussed that he did not think its clauses needed further explanation. Every possible contingency had been considered in the Bill, which' Without the compulsory clauses would be worthless. Although they were embodied, they might not be required for a year or two. To say that the smaller dairy concerns might be robbed of thefr rights was absurd. The Bill was a thoroughly democratic measure. The Meat Bill had been put through in a hurry, but it ho.d worked well, and this being more carefully considered would be more successful. “What is the alteration in the clause regarding the contracts,” asked' the Leader of the opposition, Mr T. M. Wilford. t ~ The Minister explained that the iclause saving from adverse effects any contract entered into prior to July 1, 1923 had been altered in committee to October 1, 1922, but the original date should he reverted to to be honest' with Form of'Plebiscite. In reply to Mr Masters (Stratford), 1-lon. Nosworthy said tljat the form of the plebiscite, if put to the people, would probably be “Bill or no Bill,” because without the compulsory clauses it would be worthless. Mr Masters said that the Prime Minister had clearly stated that the plebiscite would be taken before the Bill was passed by the House. He was very disappointed with the attitude of the Minister. He saw no necessity for Government representation on the Board. The Minister was' rightly given the right to say whether produce should be exported or not, but as, in this case, unlike the Meat 'Board, there was no such responsibility, he failed to see the meed for .Government representation. He welcomed the introduction of the direct yote of producers in the choice of representatives. The retention of control of export by the Minister would -prevent interference with supplies by injudicious export. He mentioned current contracts with Messrs Nathan i and Co., and on that account objected to the extension of the contract signring date to July, 1923, as it would mean that one-ninth of all the butter in the Dominion'would be free for a long period from the compulsory clauses of the Bill. ■ A Member: Not from the levy. Air Masters: They are liable for the levy, but we have bad a legal opinion that they are free from the compulsory clauses. There were other factories that had entered into contracts also. He quite understood the difficulties of the Minister, but no doubt he had been moved to make these people a promise. Mr Nosworthy: I rnade.no promise. Mr Masters said that the Committee bad realised that it was unfair that the reserve fund should conic not from Jhe revenue, but from the sale of produce, and therefore, to prevent the piling up of a big reserve fund, it was decided that .the reserve fund should 'not be greater than the levy in any one year. He asked the House to consider the experience of pools in other countries. The fruit pool had cost Australia hundreds of thousands of pounds', and had been abandoned, and it had been decided not to go on with a wheat pool. Were the producers in New Zealand any better off for the ihoney pool? Last year they received not more than 4d lb.

Premier's Promise. Mr Masters regretted the -"Minister's remarks in view of what everyone hail ■thought was the Prime .Minister's promise. Mr Massey: Don't you distort what J said. Mr Masters: I am only saying what J thought was a promise. Mr Massey: I am not going back on anything I said. What I said was that I would consider the matter with the Minister who was In charge of (he Bill, and that I was in favour of such a thing being done. Mr Masters: If the Prime Minister he is in favour of it, and is willing to do it, there is no need for mo to say more. i

Room for improvement. Mr 0. J. liawken (Egmonl) said that statistics showed, and those dairy producers who should know were convinced, that there was room for improvement in the marketing. No doubt Toolcy Street had built up a very fine business, hut the Dominion's dairy exports were increasing, and might reach £40,000,000 at no distant date. Was this not a hint for better marketing arrangements? The brokers sold from day to day, but in so largo an industry there should be some general control, such as was not exercised by brokers, it might well be that good prices were being obtained now, but control should be exercised before disaster came. The emmittee had sep.vd g, suspicion amongst witnesses that all

was not well with the handling of the product after it left Now Zealand, while proprietary concerns had their rights, the produce belonged primarily to the producers, and lie believed that what opposition there was to the bill came from the influence of those proprietary concerns as voiced by townsmen. The country people were almost all in favour of it. A member: That's not so.

Mr Hawkcn said it was significant that while the big Arms expressed themselves in favour of the Bill their agents worn actually opposing it. A body should he set up to handle and perhaps control the product after shipping. He was sure that it was not the intention of the Act to protect contracts beyond agency rights.

Why the Honey Pool Failed. Mr F, Langstone (Waimarino) said that the fact that the board could deal direct with the producer would eliminate at least one considerable charge. The reason of the non-success, of the honey pool was lack of Government control, and the grading that that would enforce. Organisation was the keynote of success. The prosperity talked of by the Prime Minister meant banks, insurance companies and big firms. Mr Massey thought they were New Zealand, but they were not. Present Methods a Joke.

Mr C. E. MacMillan (Tauranga) said that experience in New Zealand had shown that the great proprietary concerns had strangled the industry, and it was only after the establishment of big co-operative dairies that the people of Waikato had secured control of their own industry. Without compulsion it was impossible for dairy suppliers to have a common source of reliable information in the Old Country. What man with stock for sale did not follow it to the yards to see what became of it? At present the dairy farmers here lost all control of their product directly it was shipped. Denmark's prosperity was entirely due to methods of marketing, while our methods were looked upon by Denmark as a joke except when we were foolish enough to glut the market. Brokers frequently secured parcels of butter to the detriment of old-etsablished houses in London, who could not guarantee supply, and many of the best houses did not confine their trade to New Zealand butter. The methods of finance were all to the advantage of speculative brokers. Labour's Support. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, announced that his party would support the second reading on the ground that the effective marketng of primary products was second only in importance to effective He embraced the opportunity to a'dvance the claims of dairy farm workers to representation on the proposed board, and the establishment of a State shipping service. A Vigorous Support.

Mr A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa) vigourously supported the Bill, and urged dairy farmers to take the chance offered by the Bill to stabilise their position as exporters of primary produce as the Meat Producers' Board had done in the case of the sheep farmers. He reviewed the struggle between the Meat Board and shipping interests, whose offers they refused as too little. They took the struggle to London, and secured such big reductions in freights as brought them below those enjoyed by Australian meat producers, which for the past 30 years had been less than freights charged to New Zealand producers. Taranakl's Opposition.

Mr S. G. Smith (Taranaki) strongly opposed the Bill, •saying that the whole of the nine co-operative factories in Taranaki were against its principle and .effect.

That any effectve combination was beyand dairy farmers, if left to themselves, was the contention of Mr G. McKay (Hawke's Bay), who emphasised that compulsion for general benefit was the basis of all our laws. .He instanced the way the farmers nelgected noxious weeds, where inspectors are now active as one phase of the hi effects of individual freedom of action in the public in general. The Sole Safeguard. Mr W. H. Field (Otaki) said factories in his district favoured the Bill. The co-operation and organisation embodied in the Bill were the sole safeguard against Argentine, which was their strongest competitor. He hoped the Imperial Conference would cement and co-ordinate trade within the Empire on the . lines of the Linlithgow suggestions. Compulsory Clauses.

Mr P. Lye (Waikato) believed that the strong desire for organised marketing was outweighed by the aversion lo the compulsory provisions. Eighteen factories would be . tied up for long periods under the extended dates for signing contracts.' He would vote for the Bill, as he thought a referendum and a direct vote of producers for representation should be arranged in committee. Th© milker of milkers. That the Control Board would greatly improve marketing and channels at Home was contended by Mr J. R Corrigan (Patea), who considered the shipping problem would be solved by the Bill. The man who was doing all the objecting was not the milker of cows but the man who milked the milker. Interesting Summary. Sir George Hunter, who was chairman of the committee to whom the Bill was referred, presented an interesting summary of the evidence. Of the factories represented before the committee 22S were in favour and 183 against the Bill. There were 40,374 tons of batter and 38,484 tons of cheese in favour of the Bill, and 10,974 tons of butter and 11,411 tons of cheese against the Bill. The Auckland factories were overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill; Wellington were strongly in favour, and Taranaki slightly against.. That a referendum would meet the diversity of opinion amongst the suppliers if copies of the evidence were made available to all factories was the opinion of Mr de la Percllc (Southland). Mr W. 11. Veitch (Wanganui) feared a great injustice might lie done to the proprietary concerns interested in dairy control.

Second Reading Carr Ted. At 7.25 p.m. !be second reading was curried on Ihe voices. When the committee stage was reached Mr Wilford and Mr Holland protested against silling further. The Prime Minister said he did not wish Iri deprive members of an opportunity to express an opinion, and emphasised Ihe fact that a good ileal of oilier business remained lo be done, and time whs shortening. The discussion proceeded on the mailer of representation of producers !iy direct vole I ill 2.r> a.m., when the Bill was reported.