CONTROL OF PRODUCE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 99, 15 August 1944, Page 6

CONTROL OF PRODUCE

WARNING TO FARMERS

MR W. SULLIVAN'S ADDRESS

Ulil'LY TO HON. WALTKU NASI!

An appeal to the producers generally to sec that *hej r get back into their own hands the control of their produce was made by Mr W. Sullivan, National M.P. for Bay of Plenty when speaking 1 on the Finance Bill! in the House .of Representatives. Mr Sullivan said his electorate contained many dairy tanners and meat producers. In view ol' the treatment meted out to the primary producers he was astonished at the fact that the whole of the debate was being carried on by Opposition members, if the Government members had a case to put up they would have participated, but obviously the}' were running away l'rom the measures they had introduced Our Primary Industries

The economy of New Zealand depended entirely on the activities of the primary producers Avho obtained the. sterling funds with which wc could import materials to this country, and it was through the work of those eiigaged in primary 'industries that we got our standard ol' living. The Government had introduced a measure to confiscate part of the hard earned inicomc of the producers, and it was not in the interests of the country that that sort of thing should continue, because once the primary industries declined the country as a whole must likewise fall back, A few years ago the Minister of Finance told the, country what wonderful treatment lie was going to mete out to the primary producer, but since the war began he had neglected to sec. that those .same primary producers got ''a fail' ] go" and now lie proposed to get away with the "bundle." "Are wo going to ask our people to stand for that? The Minister of Finance, mav sit there smiling if he likes." The Hon. Mr Nash: Such nonsense. Mr Sullivan: The lion, gentleman's nonsense is contained 'in his booklet ("Guaranteed Prices —Why and How.") He. put the guaranteed price scheme 'across' the people following the depression period. He did not know one -cow from another, but he went around the country telling his •story and trying to talk the farmers i'nto the philosophy and doctrine of the Labour Party. Now, he has put the rule across them. If wc are to prosper in this country, our producers must have fair treatment.

Pig Meats . Mr Sullivan said that the Government had not, paid to the. producei unj'thing like the amount lie was entitled to, and it had not maile any effort to see that he received a lair return for his produce. It had been revealed that there 1 was an amount of something like £.")0, 000 or £00,000 in the account relating to the pig industry. Despite the appeals made by producers of pigmeats, the Government had declined to give them a lil't up. The farmers' costs had increased steadily ever since the Avar commenced—in fact ever since the Labour Party, or Socialist Party took office. There were, the ever-increasing hospital rates, brought about entirely as a result of the policy of the present Government, and they had never made any serious attempt to adjust that anomaly. The rates had increased in parts of his district, said Mr Sullivan by as much as 10.s an acre.

Petrol Tax Raided i Mr Sullivan then instanced the "raiding" that was going on of the funds provided by the petrol tax, and said a sum of money amounting to about £23,000 01)0 had been paid into the Consolidated Fund. Only about £'22,000 000 had been used for road construction and the maintenance' of main highways which was the original purpose and intention ol the legislation. The purpose of that legislation was to extend main and secondary highways and to assist in roading back-country areas. The Government had not done that, but had transferred % the, amount to the Consolidated Fund or to the War Expenses Account.

Burden oil Producers An ever-increasing burden was being east on the producers, continued Mr Sull'ivan. Clause 11 ol' the Bill gave, the Minister of Marketing power to pay out ol any account established under the 19M5 Marketing Act any .sums as he might direct from time to time. It was known that there was an accumulation in some of those accounts, and the Minister of Marketing was. go' ing to turn that surplus or accumulation over so that 'it might be used, probably from the War Account, to be paid out in subsidy to other industries or to those in other occupations who were more favoured than the primary prodiu'-

ers. Had the Government discussed this question and the contents of - clause 11 with representatives of the primary producers? Surely it. was right that the men who produced the goods should receive some consideration and have some say in what was going to he, done with the re-* Venue derived from their produce. The Stabilisation Agreement provided that if there was a surplus the particular board would deteiminc ways and meaiVs in which such amount could be utilised lor the, benelit of the industry. Had the Government discussed with the n Meat Producers' Board what was to be done with the surplus, or was . power being take.n, under this clause 11, to transfer funds from the account? Socialist Trend ''This very business coincides with the aims of the Labour or Socialist Parly," continued Mr Sullivan. "It is the Government's policy to have everybody inside the country on a fixed and definite income, so that produce can, be sold at a fixed price. Lf the Government, under the 15)3(i Act takes control of produce once it leaves the shores of New Zealand and a greater price was obtained than the Government was paying out, the Government was going to look on the surplus as State-owned funds. I' believe that that is the true philosophy of the. Labour Party, and I believe too, that 'it is entirely* wrong and should not be consented in any way. If that is to be the doctrine of the party, it means that the agriculturist—whether he be dairy farmer, meat farmer or any one else who produces goods for export —is to become j.ust an employee of the State. We will reach the stage when we will not have people producing the goods that are so essential to our national welfare on that basis. That is all under the philosophy of Karl Marx and others associated with that doctrine." I Confiscation of Equity Mr Sullivan referred to a state- | me.nt by the Prime Minister, that anv increase in sterling lunds 01 words to that eltect, woidd become , the property of. the State, it means j that, the Government was going to take over that difference in value, and if so, it would be raiding the producers' account. it would be confiscating his equity in his own j produce. AVhy did not the Ministei of Finance and Prime Minister, I when they addressed the country e electors, during the last, election „ campaign, tell the producers that I that was going to be the policy to c be put into operation? s The primary producer lost control of all his produce under the Marketing Act 19:3(5," and the sooner he [S fought to get back producer control v , that was control of h'is own produels—the better, .because there were men in the primary industries who were far more capable of looking after the welfare of those industries than there were in the. Gov.l eminent or any oI its departments.