ADDRESS IN REPLY

Grey River Argus, 23 September 1937, Page 6

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Debate in House [Per Press Association]. WELLINGTON, September 21. Speaking on the Address-in-Reply, in the House, Mr Denham stated the Southland farmers were more than satisfied with what the Government was doing with regard to guaranteed prices. Mr T. D. Burnett said he failed to understand New Zealand’s apathy to defence. He suggested a private session, at which the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister should take members into their confidence, concerning defence. Criticising the guaranteed price policy, Mr Burnett said the producer liked to market his own produce. Mr Barrett, making his maiden speech in the House, aflirmed support of the policy of the Government. Referring to the Opposition’s contentions that legislation was endangering the solid financial structure built up by pioneers of the Dominion, Mr Barrell asked how many of the pioneers had enjoyed the fruits of their labour. Most of the men and women who had done the hardest labour in building up the foundations of the Dominion, had not enjoyed the fruits of tneir industry, which had gone into the hands of a few. The metropolitan papers throughout the country devoted more space—four inches to one inch—to the Opposition speakers in the House than to those of the members of the Government. Mr Polson said the Minister of Education had tried to discredit Mr Hamilton’s speech. He had stated the Government’s guaranteed price scheme had not been the same as proposed by the Dairy Board, but he (Mr Polson) drew attention to the similarity between the Board’s scheme and that operated by the Government. Under the Board’s scheme there had been no commander, it was time that all “ballyhoo” about marketing should be stopped. The Dairy Board, had it been left alone, would have carried out the job more efficiently and al. less cost than the Government. Mr Sullivan, referring to the guaranteed prices, said that a most thorough and exhaustive investigation had been made before this year’s guaranteed prices had been fixed. Mr Polson: Let’s have the reports submitted at the investigation. Mr Sullivan: That’s a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government, but I don’t think the hon. gentleman would consider his case had been strengthened even if he did see those reports. The Leader of the Opposition was in for’ a difficult time. A lot of peo.ple, even among the Opposition’s own supporters, felt sure that the members for Kaipara and Hurunui had been thrown overboard in time of their defeat. The present leader of the Opposition would have that to contend with. All talk of bureaucratic control of industry by the Government was propaganda. The Government was applying the principle of co-operation to industries, under the Industrial Efficiency Act. Control was fully justified, as long as exercised with discretion. There , had been hundreds of companies in New Zealand which should never have been started. He instanced a number of land ■ utilisation companies as among these. The Leader of the Opposition had asked what the Government was doing under the Profiteering Act to prevent rises in prices. The Act was not to prevent rises in prices. Under the Act, basic prices were fixed in June, 1936, and the pur-

pose was to prevent unreasonable rises on those fixed basic prices. The

Industries and Commerce Department had made many inquiries and proved that in the majority of cases, the increased prices had not been excessive; In cases where it had been proved that over-charges had been made, the Department had made representations that such prices should be reduced, and had no difficulty in having this done quite amicably. He defended tne administration of the Railways and said all figures he had in his possession- demonstrated the prosperity of the workers, and people generally in this country. Mr Holland said the Government had taken office under the most promising conditions, in the first year it held office, the country had experienced a record year. This contrasted with trying conditions the previous Government had experienced in the depression. The basic wage was having a very detrimental effect on the young people and he quoted figures showing that increasing young people were leaving the schools before they had completed their education, so tney would be able to complete their apprenticeships be-

fore the age of twenty-one. The Minister of Finance (Mr Nash) said that under the previous Government, wages had been cut, pensions reduced and services restricted in every way, whereas the present Gov- ' ernment was endeavouring to remove the indictment that the Dominion had reduced its social services, ne quoted figures, showing the Dominion’s expenditure on social services compared more than favourably with similar per capita payments in the Homeland. The prospects for employment of young people had been greatly improved, and the Government was doing everything possible to see those who'had missed their opportunity during the slump would be absorbed into industry. Mr Nash instanced the increased number of marriages, stating there was no better means of increasing the country’s population than to encourage young people to marry. The maximum beneiit to the country came with high wages. It did no" matter how high commodity costs went as long as wages went higher and there had never oeen a period in this country when the people were better able to meet all charges incidental to home life. Last year companies’ profits had increased 16 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition had alleged that the Government’s dairy marketing scheme had been lying on the desk of the Dairj' Board before the Government came into office. The officials of the Dairy Board would be the first to admit that the Government’s scheme was not the same as that prepared by the Dairy Board. It had taken the Opposition fifteen months to find out that the marketing scheme was going to be a success and it was now trying to see that the Government was not going to get the credit for it. It was the best marketing scheme for any produce operating in London to-day. He had received a number of letters from dairy farmers expressing complete satisfaction with guaranteed prices. Similar letters had also been sent to newspapers but they had not been published. Mr Dickie: That is not fair. I have seen several such letters in the Tara-

naki newspapers. Mr Nash said he had not noticed the letters to which Mr Dickie referred. Outlining the methods by which the Government had assessed the present guaranteed prices, Mr Nash stated that the Government had taken average farms producing from lOOlbs to 1751bs of butterfat to the acre. After assessing over 14,000 dairy farms, the Government concluded that working and maintenance costs on farms worked out at 5.07 d per lb. butterfat and interest, etc. 3.06 d per lb. The Government had also added to those costs 1.54 d per lb. for pigs and had added twopence per lb. for cheese. The resultant price after deducting these costs, Mr Nash said had gone to the dairy farmer. The income was commensurate with the work he was doing. New Zealand’s marketing procedure overseas had been a remarkable success, and the Government felt it had the support, of 90 per cent, of the dairy farmers for its guaranteed price scheme. Mr Bodkin said the Government had destroyed confidence in this country. Why Australia had secured a better contract than New Zealand for shipping produce was that in this Dominion waterfront labour had got completely out of hand and port charges were considerably higher. He accused the Government of a Socialistic policy, and said it did not want to encourage private ownership of land. That was the reason why the Government had no land settlement, scheme.