PARLIAMENTARY.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 August 1926, Page 4

PARLIAMENTARY.

DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

AVELLINGTON, August 3.

In the House at 7.30 p.m. the Hon. .Mr Hawken (Minister for Agriculture) moved the second reading of the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill. After describing two minor amendments, the .Minister said the important feature of the Bill was the provision made for the election of members of the Board. He went on to explain the effect of the proposed changes. He said that lie personally was satisfied that the Board would not have been differently constituted had the ward system been in force when the Board was originally constituted. There had ' been a. great deal of controversy as to election of the Board, hut lie.was hound to say that the present members were elected fairly and squarely by the bulk of the producers of the Dominion. They had a great deal of experience in the commercial side of the industry, as well as the manufacturing side, and when he saw criticism alleging that the members were inexperienced, he frankly admitted that he did not know where to look for experienced men. The dairy-farmers of New Zealand had Imilt up their own industry, which was now the largest in the couiriry, and this lias been done by business methods of which we bail every reason to be proud. The members of the Board bad been in the forefront of this constructive policy, and lie thought that if they had been so successful in building up the business of their respective companies, lie was prepared to entrust to them the larger problems of managing the Dominion’s output. The individual producer had; as "a matter of fact, never sold ibis own produce. This had always been done hy the directors of the companies, and all that was now proposed was that the Control Board should take the place of the directors. OPPOSITION TO BILL.

Many in the dairy industry were afraid of control because it was an innovation ; others opposed control because t.icy wished to see the dairy fanners disunited. They were not dairymen and if control came in they would not ho wanted, ami naturally they said, “Where do 1 conic in?” and at once set about dividing the army of dairymen, in the hope that they would he able to defeat those who were not united. Control was the host answer to tllie operations of trusts and combines, and when the industry came under the Ac-t it would derive great benefits. Considerable savings had already been made in insurance, but the greatest savings would he in marketing, and in the elimination of speculators. For two years past the dairy companies had themselves regulated supplies to the London market with the host results, but with their small knowledge of the working of markets they could not go on doing this. But with members of the new Board in London, they could obtain information not open to directors living in Now Zealand. The Board would not control prices, but it could do a great deal to help the position by simply following straightforward lines. SUPPORT FROM. LABOUR.

Mr IT. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) said the figures circulated by the Prime Minister flint, afternoon boro on the face of them argument for eon- , troi. Tie had no doubt the statement , was sltvge-mnnnged for that purpose. . So far as control was concerned, he was aware that a large number of farmers had refrained from voting on that issue hut he did not consider the House hail , a right to assume that tanners therefore wore opposed to control, lie la- ’ von-rod the ward system, and the individual vote for suppliers, but bis Party would oppose voting oil the tonnage basis because that meant substituting butter for human beings, and . it would .still be possible for a minority of tons of butter to out-vote a ’ majority of tons of butter. He favour- , cd control because it was a counterstroke to the trusts and combines. They must remember that they must , either own the trusts or the trusts would own them. Tie was surprised at , the bitterness with which the campaign ’ against control was being fought, and it was the exploiting interests that were fighting the workers. If they were to have control, it must be absolute control, otherwise they would find | Tooley Street getting ahead of them. The best proposal for the disposal of the Dominion primary products was that made by the British Labour Gov- 1 eminent, namely, that the Government should take charge of the produce and eliminate speculators in its marketing. That scheme could not be given effect to, and this was the next best tiling. His Party would therefore support the ward system, one man one vote, but would oppose the tonnage system. A FARMER’S MOVE. Tile Hon. Mr Young (Minister for HealtlG said the Government had been subjected to considerable criticism because it had brought in control of dairy produce, hut as a matter of fact the .Government had nothing to do with control. The dairy farmers themselves had decided in favour of control, and Parliament had merely provided the machinery by which that decision could be given effect to. Ho favoured control because it would counteract the operations of speculators who were exploiting the producers. MR VEITCH IS UNCOMPROMISING Mr AY. A. \ r eitch (AYanganui) maintained that compulsory control was the antithesis of co-operation, the very essence of which was freedom of action. Only a section of the dairy producers 1 had favoured compulsion, and that did not justify control, nor did it justify Parliament interfering to give effect to control. There seemed to he a good

deal of contempt for proprietary companies amongst members of the House. This was not justified, because .they were simply entering into one of the ordinary businesses of the country. The whole of the opposition to compulsion did not come from the proprietary concerns. He predicted that compulsion would benefit the proprietary concerns, because under it co-operative factories would not he able to get the advances required in the early part of the sea. son. Compulsion should he postponed until such time as the financial position was more assured. Personally, ho would never support- control. He criticised the system of voting ns being unscientific. and declared that it "ns designed to secure the election of one particular gentleman. Mr J. A. Nash (Palmerston North) congratulated the Government on bringing down a Bill dealing with the ward system and the method of voting, but so far as control was concerned, lie had J opposed it. and was still opposed to it. SIR JOSEPH WARD’S VIEW.

Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill), ridiculed the idea mentioned by Mr Holland that the British Government should fake over Dominion produce and dispose of it. because to protect those sources of supply they would have to take over all other sources of supply. I-Ie objected to compulsory control, because every man had a right to dispose of the product of his own labour. The Labour Party was supporting control because it was in keeping with their policy of nationalising the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Mr Holland was more far-see-in<T than members of the Government .because he could see the end of his policy and members of the Reform Party could not. Mr H. M. Campbell (Hawke’s Bay) considered that before the Bill became law the present members of fhe Board

should retire, and a fresK election should be held. In that event, he was confident that a majority would turn down compulsion. M.r G. AY. Forbes (Hurunui) said lie voted for control originally because they were told it was not intended to use it unless it became absolutely necessary. Control should be supported by a very strong case, and bo was bound to admit no such case bad befell made out. He strongly favoured tho postponement of control, although, with tlie strong majority behind the Government, there was little hope of success in that direction. . The Hon AV. Nosworthy said farmers had just as much right to organise in their own interests as any other section of the business community, and that was all they were doing under the Bill. He advised farmers to hang on to compulsory control as one way of fighting those interests which were fighting them. Air Savage spoke strongly in favour of control. If farmers found it did not work it would not ho difficult to revoke it. Mr Hamilton (Awarua) gave instances of speculators’ operations on the produce markets, which were not in the interests of dairy farmers. Control' would eliminate that undesirable element from the dairy business. Mr J. C. Rollestou (AA’aitomo, Mr 11. L. Tape'y amd Sir*John Luke favoured postponement of compulsion. Mr J. M’C Dickson (Chalmers) said that although lie had been asked by a section of his constituents to support control, be would not do so because bo did not believe in it. The Him D. Buddo said he had previously voted for control under the impression that it would not be exercised except in case of omeregenev. As no emergency existed .and control was to bo exercised he would reverse his vote and support the amendment for postponement. Mr AA'aite favoured control because, in this case, it was not 'State control but was producers’ control. In view of the possible competition, it was necessary that farmers should organise, but opponents of the Bill would deny them that right. There were 75 per cent of the dairy farmers who favoured control, .anil the last conference had decided in favour of the voting system contained in the Bill. Therefore, if the House wished to support the farmers, members would support the Bill as it stood, Mr Bellringer was opposed to control because it. was contrary to the true spirit of co-operation, which lie considered essential to the prosperity of the dairy industry. The dairy farmers in his district might be erroneous in their ideas, but lie thought they were right in opposing compulsory control. For that reason lie. would vote to kill the Bill, or in any other way delay its operation. The Minister, in icfilv. said most of the arguments used by the opponents of the compulsory clauses were such as they were familiar with. The opposition meant that the House, after having given the farmers power to control their own industry, was now asked to take that power away. That was not logical. Tho second reading was agreed to on the voices, and the House rose at 2.45 n.m.