PRIMARY PRODUCE

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 20, 24 July 1945, Page 7

PRIMARY PRODUCE

LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The second reading, debate on the Finance Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives last night, when Mr. W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) revived the discussion on the British Government's lump-sum payments to New Zealand, and the operation of stabilisation accounts. ;

Mr. Sheat contended that the lumpsum payments were only made because the British Government realised that the New Zealand farmer had been selling his produce at a pegged-down price lower than the world prices. A committee of the Dairy Board and Meat Board had stated that it was satisfied with the position after full disclosure of the communications between the two Governments. He contended that that information should be made freely available to the whole of the producers. s While the farmers were not suggesting repudiation of the agreement, they looked to the Government to honour it, which, contended Mr. Sheat, had not been done. It was the woolgrower who had contributed £147,706 in 1942-43 and £135,000 in the following year to subsidise wool used by New Zealand mills, and the meat producers had to subsidise up to £400,000 of the cost of keeping -town local meat prices. He contended that 109,000 bobby calf skins were bought for 3s a skin less than export value, and that during the present year there was a demand for 150,000 skins on the same terms. The bobby calf pool, however, refused to provide more than 50,000 skins at that price. "This Government stands for. security for the farmer and not for speculation," said the Minister of Marketing (Mr. Roberts). It appeared that the Opposition desired to have stabilisation of costs within New Zealand and high prices overseas. The Government, in making the agreements, had dealt with honourable men and all the cards were laid on the table. "If the member for Patea cannot trust them," he added, "we can." They had placed it on record in print on several occasions that they had had, access to the documents. The point remained that the men at the head of the Dairy Board and the Meat Board had been selected by the producers themselves and it was doing a disservice to the whole of the farming industry to suggest that something sinister or dishonest had been done or that "a smart one" had been put over. The men of integrity who had been selected understood the position when they were dealing with the Government. Mr. Sheat: Will you put the documents on the table?

The Minister: They have already heen on the table and investigated.

AFTER THE LAST WAR,

Continuing, the Minister said the Government did not want a repetition of what had happened after the last war, when the farmers, had high prices for their produce, with land at treble its value and mortgages quadrupled. After that came the depression. Justice was the only possible basis for discussion of the lump-sum payment from Britain, said Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill), and it was necessary to examine the question of what was just for the other sections of the community. If the farmers were hard up, what about thousands of workers? The Opposition had never done anything else but try to set town against country. Of all the employers in New Zealand who received £2000 a year and over, the Income Tax Department disclosed that 54 per cent, were the "poor, hard-up farmers." He knew that the real genuine farmer deserved every pennypiece he received, but he was not thinking so much of him as of the farmer who lived in Remuera, the man who farmed the genuine farmer and who the National Party represented. After 'quoting the earnings of waterside workers in the year 1939-40, and the earnings of carpenters, coal miners, and general labourers on construction works, Mr. Richards contended that the figures showed that the national wealth and income were substantially in favour of the farming element. ~