DAIRY CONTROL

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 85, 1 July 1927, Page 7

DAIRY CONTROL

Labour Leader Launches Attack on Government

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY DEBATE

THE debate on the Address-in-Reply was continued in the House of Representatives yesterday when the Opposition made a vigorous attack on the Government's actions in regard to dairy control. Mr. Holland’s amendment declared no-confidence in the Government on the grounds of its failure to support the Dairy Control Board's policy and failure to check the increase in the bank rate.

Press Association. WELLINGTON, Thursday. The debate on the Address-ln-Keply was continued in the House of Representatives to-day. The first speaker was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland. Mr. Holland said the one definite statement in the Governor-General's speech was with regard to the Singapore naval base, but that he would discuss on another occasion. Legislation dealing with the dairy industry was promised, but he could see nothing that was going to protect the dairy farmer. All other references to legislation were equally vague: there was not the slightest indication what the nature of the legislation was to be. If the reference to the Legislature Amendment Bill meant extending the life of Parliament to five years, that proposal would have to be fought to a finish. Criticising the speech of the Minister of Finance at Feilding, Mr.' Holland said the customs revenue went up by some £750,000, and but for this fact the Minister would have had a surplus of only £7,000 instead of £587,000. He failed to find any reference in the speech to dairy control. Neither did he hear the mover or seconder of the Address-in-Reply make any reference to this important subject. At this he was considerably surprised, and he therefore desired to move the following amendment to the motion before the House: ‘'That the following words be added: ‘But we deem it our duty to represent to your Excellency that your excellency’s advisers do not possess the confidence of the people of the country for the.following reasons: (1) The action of your Excellency's advisers in wrongfully interfering with the administration of the Dairy Export Control Act: (2) their failure to make provision for adequate financial accommodation for the producers and home-builders of the Dominion; (3) their failure to take any effective steps to check the raising of the bank rate, which is having such a depressing effect on industrial development, and is causing widespread hardship among all sections of the community.” Mr. Holland then proceeded to deal with the question of dairy control. Immediately the seamen’s strike took place merchants in Tooley Street began to gamble in New Zealand butter, and the Prime Minister had helped to smash his dairy control legislation by his action in England. On the first shot in opposition to dairy control being fired by Tooley Street the Government showed the white flag. MR. PATERSON AND THE GOVERNMENT Dealing with Mr. Paterson’s position on the Dairy Produce Board, Mr. Holland said he had opposed control, although he was the representative of the Government, and was bound to carry out the policy of the board. Evidently Mr. Paterson spoke and acted with the authority of the Government, and the Government was responsible for his actions. The Government claimed to have taken up a non-interfering attitude toward the board, but it was resisting Mr. Paterson’s resignation. It had expressed satisfaction at Mr. Paterson's conduct on the board, and therefore what Mr. Paterson did the Government did. The Prime Minister, when in London, had received a deputation of Tooley Street representatives behind the back of the board. That deputation had not desired Mr. Grounds to be present, and because of this Mr. Grounds was not asked to attend. Why did the London agency of the board not get a copy of the Prime Minister’s cable to New Zealand for nine days after it had been sent, while Tooley Street knew all about it the day after it was sent? He asked for an explanation of that incident from the Prime Minister. INTERFERENCE DENIED The Minister of Health, Hon. J. A. Young, denied the Government had interfered in dairy control. So far as price-fixing was concerned it had to be remembered that New- Zealand sent only 20 per-cent of the dairy produce consumed in Great Britain, and definite price-fixing by a 20 per cent supplier was obviously a problematical undertaking. Stability of prices was important to the primary producer, for fluctuations week by week disorganised the farmers’ financial arrangements. If a “take it or leave it” policy had been adopted the British consumers could not have afforded to buy New Zealand produce at high prices. Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the National Party, accused the Government of lack of policy and lack of decision in regard to licensing legislation. It brought down a bill, but no one would own it, and the members of Cabinet seemed to have no agreement about it. A Gaming Bill had been brought in by a private member, but if this legislation .were necessary it should have been brought down by the Government. If the Prime Minister really believed this Gaming Bill was needed he should have introduced and passed it. COMPULSION BLAMED As far as dairy control was concerned, Mr. Forbes said it was an experiment in socialism by the Government, and he did not think the Government must be influenced by the result to go on -with it. The cause of the failure was the power of compulsion embodied in the scheme. He maintained control of a compulsory nature must fail, and he regretted the House had no information as to what the Government intended to do with regard to the compulsory legislation now on the Statute Book. They now knew the weakness of compulsion, and it -was time it was repealed, otherwise it might unexpectedly be put into force again, to the detriment of the dairy industry.

ELECTION FUNDS Referring to the election funds of ; the Reform Party, Mr. Forbes said there were suggestions that large sums of money had come from oer- j tain quarters, and it was impossible to escape the conclusion that the, Government must be influenced by j the requirements of those who sup- ' plied the money. He thought a committee should be set up to go into the whole question, with the object of keeping politics clean. The Hon. R. A. Wright denied that any compact had been made between the Government and the brewers in 1925, and between the Government and merchants later on for political purposes. The personnel of the Government was reasonable proof that neither the brewers nor the merchants would put any money on the Government. It was most unfair to make any such allegations without producing proof of the statements. There was not a single Minister in the Government who would sit on the Treasury benches if he were tied to any outside organisation. He defended the action of the Government in not making the licensing question a party one. No Prime Minister had done so, and with the .country evenly divided no Government could stand if it attempted to take one side or the other. At this stage the debate was adjourned, and the House rose. CROSS-FIRE SOME LIVELY EXCHANGES TOOLEY STREET’S TRIUMPH (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter .) WELLINGTON, Thursday. 'T'HE Opposition’s attack on the -*■ Government in the Address-in-Reply debate was launched by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. E. Holland, to-day, when he moved a motion of no-confidence in the. present Administration, and made a lengthy speech, particularly on the subject of dairy control. He dealt in great detail with the history of the dairy control controversy, and levelled his charges against the Prime Minister, declaring that the actions of Mr. Coates would have to be answered for by Cabinet. In dealing with dairy control, Mr. Holland became involved in cross-fire with the Prime Minister in respect of the attitude of the Government in dealing with the Dairy Control Board’s case. The Prime Minister, Mr. Holland said, had hastened to his own electorate to make his speech on the subject, but would not dare to enter the district of the independent farmer as he (Mr. Holland) had. Mr. Coates: I took my time, and spoke at my leisure. Mr. Holland: Yes, and the Prime Minister hastened to put 8,000 words of his speech out, but the Press Association saw that 8,000 words did not go out in reply. Mr. Coates: It was a good speech. Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): Who wrote it? Several members interjected at this stage, while the Prime Minister and the Deader of the Opposition were firing short bursts at each other across the chamber. “ONE AT A TIME” The Speaker intervened. “I will have to point out,” he said, “that it is the usual thing for one hon. member to speak at a time. (Laughter.) A certain amount of latitude is allowed, but when it goes so far as to be what is called heckling then I must call hon. members to order. Mr. Holland went on to declare that the merchants of Tooley Street must have thought the Prime Minister was very simple when they had impressed him so much during his visit to England. The Prime Minister had refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Paterson from the London agency. Mr. Coates: I did not have his resignation. Mr. Holland said that Cabinet would have to shoulder the responsibility for the action of the Prime Minister. “Why,” he asked, “did the Prime Minister allow Mr. Paterson to arrange behind the backs of the board a deputation of Tooley Street merchants?” THAT OCTOBER CABLE Further argument was Indulged in when Mr. Holland was dealing with Mr. Coates’s cable from England in October, and the Prime Minister interjected: “You are misrepresenting the position.” Mr. Holland: Well, you cannot have it both ways. I will read extracts from the cable. Mr. Coates: Oh, yes; but read the lot. Mr. Holland: Well, put it into Hansard, and it will prove my case. \Mr. Coates: It would take up a lot of room. Mr. Holland: Yes, but the Prime Minister's speeches usually do take up a lot of room, and you find they can usually be cut down by twothirds. Mr. Coates: And still be better stuff than yours. Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The Minister for Health, Hon. J. A. Young, denied that the Government had interfered with, the dairy control policy of the board, and discounted Mr. Holland’s castigation of the Prime Minister. Price-fixing had been applied, and failed. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne): It was not given a chance. FARMERS’ INTERESTS Mr. Young said when a majority of the board members decided on a certain action what was the use of the minority saying it had not been given a fair chance. The producers had been given their voice in the inat-

ter, and should have sufficient strength to back up their own opinions. Mr. Paterson had expressed his own views as a private business man, and not as the Government, representative. “The Government party is not dominated by the farmers’ interests,” dej dared Mr. Young. “There are enough ; farmers in the party to look after j the farmers’ interests, but the Govi ernment is seized of the farmers* problems, and is anxious to solve I them in the best interests of tli* j country.”