FAILURE OF CONTROL

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 96, 14 July 1927, Page 13

FAILURE OF CONTROL

Prime Minister in House Replies to Criticism of His Actions

BOARD'S LACK OF CAUTION

(THE & UN'S Parliamentary Reporter'.) rjAIKY control came in for another long discussion in the House of Representatives last evening during the concluding stages of the Address-in-Reply debate. The Prime Minister answered the criticisms of his actions while m London and generally defended the Government’s policy. The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. O. J. Hawken, also spoke at length on the subject.

M ELLINGTON, Wednesday. The question of dairy control came mto prominence in the House of Representatives to-day during the debate on the Address-in-Reply. Mr. J. Linklater, Manawatu, said a burning question in his electorate was dairy control. His electors voted largely for it and were bitterly disappointed that unified control had failed. This failure, he said, was due to divided counsels and interested propaganda both here and in England.

Mr. H. M. Campbell, Hawke’s Bay, said personally he did not like control of any kind, especially dairy control.

The Prime Minister said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, had tried to put the Government offside with the producers and get on side with them himself. Mr. Coates said he was himself a producer and knew from experience the whole history of co-operation among the farmers. In dealing with dairy control in London, he maintained he had no other motive than the good of the producers in New Zealand. In these circumstances he could not refuse to see the dealers of Tooley Street. He saw them in order to get their views. After that he saw the local board, and although he did not believe in fixing prices, and told the board so, he also told them, “Very well, if you won’t be advised let us see if we can make a success of your scheme. Let us see if by combined effort we can reach success.”

Should Have Gone Steadily Continuing, he proceeded to discuss (lie merits of co-operative schemes generally, pointing out that there was always a weakness when a cooperative business was managed by an elected board because the electors were always liable to change their opinions so frequently that there could be no stability of contract and policy. He preferred management free from interference. He • justified his confidential cablegram to the Government on the ground that it was madness to adopt the policy of an “open book” in business. There must be occasions on which it was wise to hold one’s own counsel. His cablegram was based on his considered opinion after he had seen people who were able to give him sound advice. He felt sure now that if the board had gone steadily at that time they would have been further ahead today. , When people tried to fix prices they must remember that there was foreign competition to cope with, and rhat was the position of the New Zealand dairy producers.

Mr. Patterson’s Appointment Dealing with Mr. Stronach Patersons appointment he said Mi-. Paterson’s name was submitted to the Dairy Board and no objection was taken to him. He could not be retired summarily. He had a contract which could not be broken without his con sent. In any case Mr. Paterson did not affect the position vitally because lie alone on the London committee was against price fixing. He denied emphatically that the Government had ever in any way dictated to Mr. Paterson what line of action he should take. It was, however, a pity that there was not unanimity among the London representatives, as it was this dissension which told against success. He denied that he shut out? Mr. W. Grounds from his interview with the Tooley Street merchants. Mr. Grounds knew his views perfectly well and was later duly informed of wliat had been done. It was the board and not the Prime Minister who put three Tooley Street merchants on the board, and he was not in any way responsible for that step. He had not accepted Mr. Paterson’s resignation in November because it was not then in. He realised Mr. Paterson was not very happy in

his relations with the board, but he had done his best to induce him to work harmoniously with the board and make its policy a success. Price fixation had created a wrong impression in Britain. There the idea had arisen that the New Zealand producers wanted to wring the last farthing out of the British consumers. They, therefore, looked upon foreign butter as a healthy competitor, which must be supported to keep prices down. If Mr. Holland believed in price fixing in Britain he must logically be in favour of fixing the price of butter in New Zealand. Later in the debate Mr. P. Fraser, Wellington Central, said he considered the Prime Minister had not freed himself from complicity in the course of action which had ended disastrously to dairy control. The insincerity of the Government in the matter of control was shown by its appointment of Mr. Paterson as Government representative on the London committee when he was opposed to control from the first. The Prime Minister said Mr. Paterson recognised that the producers had a right to combine to market their produce. It was only a question of method.

Continuing. Mr. Fraser said no sooner had Mr. Grounds arrived in London than Mr. Paterson approached him and urged him to get rid of control altogether. He wanted also to get rid of Mr. Wright, and generally opposed the board’s policy. Experience had shown that the mordent the Prime Minister met Tooley Street he abdicated and allowed the policy of Parliament and the country to be flouted. What he should have done was to tell Tooley Street that control was the settled policy of this country and if they would not help there were other avenues which might be explored.

Confidential Warnings The Hon. O. J. Hawken (Minister of Agriculture) said the action taken by the Prime Minister in London was the correct one. It was his duty to warn the board if there was danger. His cablegram from London was in the nature of a warning. It was “confidential,” and the acting-chair-man of the board failed greatly in his duty by permitting its publication. Mr. Paterson’s cablegram was also a warning and was confidential. It was the publication of those cablegrams which brought about the whole trouble. He had consulted the board about Mr. Paterson’s appointment and the members agreed that if they had opposed his appointment he would not have been appointed. He was selected because of his high postion in business circles. No member of the Government 'was against control, but they did have doubts about fixing prices. The board made a mistake in fixing prices because the members did not foresee the extent of the opposition that would arise from those who had been dealing in our butter for years. The board was not cautious enough. It rushed its hurdles and made its move at the wrong time because there was enough butter in London at the time to enable the merchants to carry on without using very much New Zealand butter. Had there been a shortage in London the board might have won out for a but as it was failure was certain. ' He hoped the control legislation would be tested out further but the board must go carefully. Mr. J. McCombs, Lyttelton said the charge against the Prime Minister was that he associated himself with Mr. Paterson’s cablegram to the board before he had heard Mr. Grounds’ side of the case. There was no escape from that position. Mr. J. A. Nash, Palmerston North, said there -was no doubt dairy control had failed and worse still the farmers had been brought down with it.