The Waikato Times MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1936. DAIRY INDUSTŔY ACCOUNT

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 19984, 7 September 1936, Page 6

The Waikato Times MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1936. DAIRY INDUSTŔY ACCOUNT

In Parliament last week the member for Wallace, Mr A. Hamilton, said that the country had still to receive a definite statement regarding the disposal of any surplus in the Dairy Industry Account at the end of the year. He admitted that the Minister of Finance had promised that any surplus would be returned to the industry, but asked for particulars as to the way in which the return would be made. There appears to be a great deal of doubt on the point, not perhaps in the Waikato, but in other dairying districts. Local farmers either heard, or read, the plain and unqualified statement made by the Minister of Agriculture when he addressed a large body ot suppliers in Hamilton not a fortnight ago. Mr Lee Martin said: “Both Mr Nash and Mr Savage have definitely stated that any loss will be borne by the Government, and if there is a surplus then this will be distributed to the farmers.” Nothing could be plainer than that, and the country should be able to rely on the statement.

Surely a member of the Cabinet knows not only what his leader and colleague have stated but also what they intend to do ? There may be occasions when it is accessary, for good reasons, to refrain from letting certain information become public property. The Minister of Defence, for instance, was unable to inform the House of all that was being done and considered in connection with the provisions for defence in the Dominion, and people generally recognise that such a course is inevitable. But the disposal of any surplus that there may be in the Dairy Industry Account is not a matter for official secrecy, and when the Minister of Agriculture said that both Mr Savage and Mr Nash had definitely made the promise to distribute it among the producers there is no occasion for any further doubt.

It can be taken for granted that a responsible Minister, whose assistance in devising the plan has been acknowledged, had authority for his statement, both for its accuracy and for making it public. Support is given to this view by the fact that neither Mr Savage nor Mr Nash have denied its accuracy, and, when the matter was mentioned in Parliament the opportunity was presented, had the statement of the Minister of Agriculture not been in accordance with their views. Experienced Ministers like Mr Savage and Mr Nash would not rely on the proverbial shortness of the public memory, because in this case, as they were aware, the statement was made to a gathering of men directly interested in the subject as it was likely to affect their incomes for the current year. It certainly will not be forgotten, and in view of the subsequent discussion in Parliament, during which either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance could have made an explanation, the producers naturally will conclude that Mr Lee Martin spoke with the concurrence of his colleagues and that the position with regard to any surplus is as lie stated it.