WILL FARMERS LOSE FREEHOLD?

Chronicle (Levin), 3 September 1948, Page 3

WILL FARMERS LOSE FREEHOLD?

Press Association )

Mr. Baxter May Haye Let Cat OutOfBag,

(Per

WELLINGTON, Sept. 2. An allegation that the Leader of the Opposition had obtained information by "backdoor" methods and had used that information to undermine the confidence of the farming community in the Government, was made by Mr. A. C. Baxter (Raglan, Labour) during the Budget debate in the House of Representatives tonight. Mr. Baxter reierred to a report in an Auckland newspaper that the Leadex of the Opposition had twice hinted that legislation was being prepared which would interfere with the freehold. He asked the Leader of the Opposition if those hints had any substance in fact, Mr. Holland: Yes, they have. Mr. Baxter: If the Leader of the Opposition has any information about such a Bill, he must have got it by backdoor methods. Mr. Holland said he had not said where he obtained the information and he was not going to be drawn. Mr. Baxter: I charge the Leader of ihe Opposition with making malicious statements — On Mr. Speaker's order, Mr. Baxter witlidrew the word malicious and said he would charge the Leader of the Opposition with undermining the confidence of the farming community in the Government by making statements without any foundation in fact. "1 charge him with doing that before a Bill has come down, " he said, adding that the proper time for the Leader of the Opposition to express an opinion on a Bill was when the measure appeared before the Honse. Opposition member: Well, there is ti be oue tlien? Mr. Holland: Could I ask the honourable member a question? Mr. Baxter: You can answer for your sins another time. Mr. Baxter, referring to the exchange adjustment said he would guarantee that at the end of the year, no loss would be made by the business section of the community. In his electorate the dairy farmer was ali right because he had a guaranteed price and the fat lamb farmer was in a good position. He was the dealer between the niarket and the hill country farmer who supplied him. The hill country farmer -would be hit to some extent by a reduction in the price for wool. It was unfortunate that this type of farmer was in the minority and could never get a fair deal from farmers ' organisations. We should be prepared to pay a fairly high premium for line wools produced on hill country. Such wools were of great importance to local woollen manufacturers and could not be obtained in New Zealand except from the high country. Mr. Baxter said the Opposition had condoled with him on the certain loss of his seat as the result of the exchange rnove but he was proud to say Government members had been unanimous in the decision. Mr. Baxter said he hoped there would soon be some agreement between the, Ieaders of the farming industry and the Government, on prices for the new season because the farmers hoped to hear those prices in the near future. Need For Subsidies. Diseussing fertilisers, Mr.. Baxter said it was false to suggest, as -had been done in his electorate, that "the Government members of the agricultural committee had been responsible for the decision against a fertiliser subsidy. The interim report of the Sheep Industry Gommission made valuable reeommendations for aiding high country farmers but it did not go far enough. Eeductions in costs which would result from the return to parfty, should be increased by a subsidy to enable those fariners to carry on developmental work. There was a need for a

subsidy on fencing materials and on rural housing. Take uver Freezing Wprks. Urging that farmers should take over the freezing works in ithe country on a cooper'ative basiJ,' Mr. Baxter said never in New Zealand 's history had the farmers been so well piaced to make that move as they were today. There were now suflicient balanees of the farmers' own money in the pool accounts, to enable ' it to be done and! occupiers of land should remember that they had a duty not only to themselves but also to posterity.' Farmers today had the wherewithal to buy all the freezing works and support for that step was far stronger among the farmers than many Opposition members admitted. Mr. Goosman: We disapprove entirely of, it being done. Mr. Oram: Is the hbnourable member for Eaglan flying a kite?" Mr. Baxter said there was also widespread support among the woolgrowers for accepting Mr. Nash's invitation to negotiatA for a guaranteed price. A number of farmers had written to hina favouring that being done. Too many spokesmen for the farmers from the other side of the House, were shareholders in stock firms or had other interests. That was no crime bnt those who piaced fheir other interests first could not. claim to represent the farmers' viewpoint. There was no doubt that if the woolgrowers were allowed to make np their minds for themselves, they would soon begin to negotiate for a guaranteed price which could operate as successfully as it had for dairy produce. Development'al work on the high country could be undertaken only if the fa'rmers were sure of a return in three to five years' time when world price levels might have changed. .Mr. Baxter said there must also be a redistribution of the land now being used by high country farmers. Hnless those farming above the snowline could get some flat land at lower levels, the huge losses of sheep in wintertime would continue. Mr. Baxter said it was irtiportant in the national interest that these stock losses should cease. Not only were the actual stock losses serious but also those that survived the severe winters were of poor quality and there was loss of wool and lambs. "I suggest to the Minister of Lands that, at an early date, he should consider ways and means of providing land at lower levels for high country farmers," said Mr. Baxter. He urged that serious consideration be giveu to the administration of the pool accounts because farmers were entitled to know how the money in thos9 accounts could best be utilised. No section trithin the farming community had a greater claim on the pool accounts than the farmer on marginal land. " Mf. W.'S. Goosman (Piako, Opposition) said the Leader of the Opposition had been accused of getting information by backdoor methods. Why was there such secrecylahout the Land Bill? Had the member for Raglan seen a draft of it? . ■ - y • , Mr. Baxter: f'm on the committee. " ; Mr. Goosman: Then the cat's out of the bag, Diseussing the exchange position, Mr. Goosman said Government members had treated it in a frivolous manner and not one Government speaker had given any consideration to those who would be affeeted by the restoration of our curreney to parity with sterling. He said he was in favour of parity with sterling in the British Empire but he did not approve the manner in which

the Government _made the adjustment. Mr. Doidge: 1 wonder why. Australia did not come in? Mr.- Goosman asked if the Seeretary of the Treasury (Mr. B. S. Ashwinj, had discussed the exchange question when he was in Britain. W as the question discussed with the Reserve Bank and did the bank favour the change? Did the Government consider the fuli eifects of the move on the country or was the decision taken on a biassed opinion? Mr. Goosman said there had been many other opportunities for the Government to ma&e the aiterationpreviousiy and the move should noi' have been taken at the time the Budgel was presented. Was there a safeguarding clause in the produce agreements with Britain or had a confidence trick been put over the producers? Was it the Labour caueus which (lad made the. decision or was the Government forceh into action by the Left wing? Mr. Oram: Did the Government fall or was it pushed'? Mr. Jones (Minister in charge of Broadeasting) : Is this a quiz session? Mr. Goosinan: The people will be quizzing the Government next election. Dr. A. M. Finlay (North Shore, Labour) said the decision to adjust the exchange was made by caucus.