TALKED OUT

Taranaki Daily News, 26 October 1922, Page 7

TALKED OUT

DAIRY POOL DILL.

THE MEASURE DROPPED. OPPOSITION TO COMPULSION.AMENDMENTS BY COMMITTEE. TARANAKI MEMBERS’ ASSAULT. (By Wire.—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. The Dairy Produce Export Control Bill, containing the legislative authority for the proposed Dairy Pool, was before the House of Representatives to-day. The special committee that had considered the Bill and taken evidence upon it recommended that it should be allowed to proceed with amendments. Some opposition to the Bill developed, and the report eventually was talked out.

Mr. O. G. Hawken (Egmont), the chairman of the special committee, presented the report. He moved that the report recommending that the Bill should be allowed to proceed should be placed upon the table.

Mr. R. Masters (Stratford), who had been a member of the committee, declared himself an opponent of the Bill in its present form. He said that he had gone to the first meeting of the committee slightly inclined towards the legislation proposed by the Government, although he had felt at the time that the compulsory clauses of the Bill might contain some danger to the dairying industry. He was convinced now, after hearing the evidence and giving the matter mature consideration, that it would not be wise to bring the compulsory clauses into operation. RUSH LEGISLATION. The committee had received ample evidence of the need for improvement in the marketing of New Zealand dairy produce. The first shipment of butter for the present season was leaving New Zealand this month, and this meant that one-fifth of the season’s output would be placed in London practically in one shipment. Prices were bound to be affected adversely by such an arrangement, but he wanted to protest against the rush legislation that was being proposed by the Government. A Bill of such extreme importance ought not to be rushed through in the last days of a session.

Members: “Who asked for it this session ?”’

Mr. Masters: “Methods like this are highly undesirable. Any attempts to make short cuts to commercial prosperity such as are proposed in the Bill almost invariably end in disaster.” The whole business had been rushed, continued the member. The first meeting had been held in Wellington some time in August, and it had been decided then that a meeting of producers should be held in Wellington in September. Some of the factories did not get notice of that meeting, and many farmers could not come to Wellington in September in any case. About 136 representatives were present at the meeting, although there were over 500 factories. The basis of the present Bill was laid at the meeting, and he would state strongly that the meeting had not been representative. “A very large proportion of the factories are opposed to this legislation, and in view of that fact, and the expressed views of the Minister, it is for Parliament to give very careful consideration to this Bill before allowing it to proceed,” he said.

Mr. Masters added that an official record prepared by the Agricultural Department showed that 157 factories had expressed themselves in favor of the Bill, 124 factories had expressed themselves against it, and over 200 factories had not given an opinion one way or the other on the Bill. Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames): What are tne outputs?

Mr. Masters: That is not material. Mr. Rhodes: It is very material. OPPOSITION TO COMPUNSION. Practically the whole of the opposition to the Bill, continued Mr. Masters, was based on the compulsory provision. The Minister for Agriculture had given the committee to understand that the compulsory clause would not come into operation without the consent of the Governor-in-Coun-cil, but the Minister was wrong in that contention. Mr. M. Myers, K.C., a legal authority of the very highest, had given the opinion that the Government could not control the board under the terms of the Bill. A Member: He appeared for the objectors. Mr. Masters said the opinion of Mr. Myers was that the Bill as drafted gave the board unfettered power to put the compulsory portion of the scheme into operation. The Minister of Agriculture: That is not

Mr. Massey: If there is any doubt on the point we will remove the doubt. Mr. Masters proceeded to refer to the house which protected existing contracts, and he described it as “the Nathan-Mc-Ewan protection clause.” Messrs. Nathan and Coy. had contracts that put over oneninth of the butter output into their hands 'or the next three years, and they would be exempted from the Bill; while Messrs. J. B. McEwan and Coy. were taking the butter from 29 factories. He agreed that the existing contracts should be respected, but this should not be done at the expense of other people. There would be rotting to prevent these firms “bearing” the market, while other people’s butter was controlled. The members of the committee had not seen the contracts, and he did not think the Minister had seen them yet. The Bill proposed to protect them as against the co-operative factories. The dairy-fanners feared that the leaders of the dairy industry were going to assume absolute control of £17,000,000 worth of produce, and they had not confidence :n those leaders. Mr. Masters urged the Prime Minister to consider the Bill carefully. The people concerned were divided upon it, and the scheme would not come into operation this year in any case. He moved that the report should be referred back to the committee for further consideration. PROTECTING THE PRODUCERS. “I have not during my three years in this House seen a better somersault than, that just performed by the member for Stratford,” said Mr. A. D. McLeod (Wairarapa). ”He was enthusiastic in the earlj' stages in saying that this was a good move for the dairy industry, but on the evidence of a few small factories, well backed up by proprietary interests, he has hauled down his colors.” The member for AA airara»’.'» proceeded to say that exactly the same b--l been urged and the .same odtic drir« in the earlj’ 9* I**- me*. t&M* scheme. The neo-

pie who were deeply interested in the meat export trade fought the scheme from every & n gle, just as the exporters of dairy produce were now fighting the present Bill, which proposed to give the farmers a measure of control over the stuff they produced.

2he development of trusts that were operating against the producers in New Zealand and in every other producing country had reached a stage where action on the part of the producers in defence of their interests was absolutely necessary. The Bill would be absolutely worthless if the compulsory clauses were cut out. He was quite sure that compulsion would not be applied either by the dairy board or the meat board, unless there were very sound reasons for doing so. He was equally sure that the representatives of the producers must be in a position to apply force if they were to deal successfully with the interests that were arrayed against the producers.

He aproved of the protection of existing contracts. Many of these contracts had been beneficial to the producers. Much of New Zealand’s success had been built upon “benevolent monoplies,” but these monopolies tended to develop in ways that would prejudice the consumers. The Bill protected contracts, but it did not relieve the people who had made these contracts from the other clauses of the Bill. The produce handled under the contracts would have to pass along the channels provided by the board. Exactly the same position had been suggested in connection with the meat produers’ board, and in the end it had been found that there was scarcely a contract worth considering in existence. POSTPONEMENT URGED. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) said he stood for any new method that would improve the methods of marketing produce. He thought that it had been unnecessary to suggest that the member for Stratford had turned a somersault. The member had made his position quite clear; he had decided to oppose the Bill after hearing evidence. Mr. Wilford proceeded to say that none of the dairy factories had seen the Bill in its present form, so that the representations already made did not count for anything. The amendments made in the Bill in committee had not been made public. Why should there be any hurry about the Bill ? Nearly half the dairy factories had not expressed an opinion for or against the Bill. The Bill contained a new provision relating to the levy, which had stood originally at £1 per ton.

The Hom W. Nosworthy: The maximum levy is one-eighth of a penny per pound on butter and one-sixteenth of a penny on cheese.

Mr. Wilford said the original provision had been altered because it had been -feared that the mention of £1 per ton would alarm the producers. He had received protests against the Bill from dairy companies and individuals in various parts of New Zealand. The Government should postpone the Bill. COMPULSORY POWER EXPLAINED. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. W. Nosworthy) said that there was another side to the case built up by the member for Stratford from the figures quoted. It had not, however, suited the member to give that side to the House. It was true that there were 525 dairy factories in the country, but the number of owners of co-operative factories was 351, and of proprietary factories 46. Those in favour of the Bill numbered 158, those against 123. and 116 were thus unaccounted for. Since the figures he had given had been compiled the number of opponents of the measure had diminished.

The Minister Mr. Masters had had much to say about the clause giving powers of compulsion. The only means by which the board was to be able to apply compulsion was through an Order-in-Council. The hoard had no means of its own for applying compulsion. All day long he was receiving telegrams which expressed approval of the Bill and urged the Government to put it through. If the discussion went on long enough there would soon be very few factories left which had not asked for the Bill. He was prepared to take the risk of believing that the country wanted the Bill. STRONG REASONS FOR DELAY. Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) said he could not suggest that it was inadvisable to look for some system of organisation of the dairy industry which would be an improvement upon the present one. He was one of those, however. who wished to see the Bill held over till next session. Sufficient time had not been allowed the producers for a thorough study of the measure. Members who were not on the committee did* not know what amendments had been made. The end of the session was ftt hand, and the time for consideration of the amendments would be very brief. Thov might bo such ns tn effect th* nrnducers’ interests most vitallv, and with the member for Stratford be thought there wore very stronor for delating +h? passage of thn TJ]l. Mr. Masters, ho said W hpon accused of somc i 'saiiltin< T . Mr. Masters had hppn nerfectlv frank. Ho had said that at first he had been inclined to «unport +hp Bill, but that after beam" the ev>dpnee for and against it. he had come M the conclusion th”f. the present time was nnt, opportune f<w the passage of Rill. Tn his own district thorp were eleven factories, and that place was the only one in wh’c 1 ' the promoters nf the pool scheme had eaßod a meeting for the purpose of explaining t”p provisions of the Bill. Tt was siemifieant that after listening tn the explanations given hv the promoters, the dimeters nf aH the factories in the district Md voted against the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Nosworthy: That is no* correct, are coming in the other way 1 (van mention one factory. Carterton Mr. Masters: Carterton is in the Wairarana. Mr. Nosworthy: Inglewood and Elt.h a ip. Mr. Masters: They were not in favour from the first. Mr. Nosworthy: Eltham is to-day, anyway. SPEAKING FOR SUPPLIERS. Mr. Smith stated that it was nnt In the interests of proprietary concerns that he was advocating the postponement of the Bill. He had not been approached by one proprietary concern inside his district or outside of it. Mr. Nosworthy: Some of the co-oppr-ative concerns are proprietary, don’t forgot that. Mr. Smith said that he was asking that the Bill should be postponed not in the interests of the proprietary companion. but. in the interests of the 700 suppliers in his district who were supplying companies, not one of which had signified approval of the original Bill. Mr. Smith said that, before the committee a point had been made of the fact

that the executive of the Farmers’ Union had passed a resolution in -favour of the Dairy Control Bill. Supporters of the Bill made much of the supposed probability that the compulsory clauses would not be put into operation. Mr. Nosworthy: The point is that neither the dairy farmers nor the meat farmers are against compulsion. Mr. Smith: The Minister would not take the responsibility of bringing the compulsory clauses into operation under either of the Bills.

Mr. Nosworthy: The trouble is that you are afraid of responsibility. Mr. Smith: I am taking the responsibility of asking the Prime Minister to postpone this Bill until next session. There are scores of producers who have not yet seen even the original proposals. THE REAL ISSUE. The Prime Minister eaid he was aware that there was very acute difference of opinion among the dairy farmers in regard to the Bill. He himself had received hundreds of letters and telegrams for and against the proposals. The proportions, as far as he could judge, were six for to one against, and he thought that this would be shown to be the position when the proper time came. He was prepared to admit that the producers had not had an opportunity to understand every dqtail of the Bill, but the real issue before the producers was quite simple: Were they to have a voice in the marketing of their own prodduce ? It was impossible for the dairy companies to understand all the details of the Bill before the session came to an end, but they could understand the main principle. They knew that the meat producers’ board had been a great success, a greater success than he had ever believed to be possible. It had enabled the farmers to get higher prices for their meat than otherwise would have been the case. He was aware that all sorts of influences were being brought to bear to block the Bill, but the dairy farmers were not stupid. They were interested in seeing that what had been done for the meat industry should be done for the dairy industry. He was unable to say if the Bill would be blocked this session. There was . not much time for lengthy discussion, and the responsibility would rest on the people who blocked the Bill, which had been introduced at the request of a very large proportion of the dairy -farmers. EXISTING CONTRACTS. He had not had any communication with the firms , that had existing contracts, but he thought it right that these contracts should be protected—the contracts ought to be honored. The talk about these contracts was merely a red herring drawn across the scent. The proposals in the Bill, said Mr. Massey, could not be brought into operation during the present season, and lie suggested that members should place the Bill on the statute book, and then the dairy farmers and the other people interested would have time to study it before it came into operation, and in the meantime Parliament would meet again. The new’ Parliament, which he expected would be almost a replica of the present Parliament, would be able to make any amendments that might be required, and if there was a majority against the Bill, or even a considerable minority, the measure would have to_ be amended. MR. MASSEY’S APPEAL.

“We are not out for party or personal interests,” said Mr. Massey. “Wo are out to do the best we possibly can for a very important section of the community. I appeal to members or the House to let the Bill go on the order paper, and then it will be dealt with in the ordinary way if there !• time to deal with it. If there is not time we must take the consequences.” Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) denied that the meat producers’ board had gained any advantage for the producers, who had been humbugged by the board and the Government. The meat pool had never come into existence, and the board had not had anything to do with the reduction of -freights and the increase of prices. Mr. McCombs continued his speech until the Speaker announced the 5.30 p.m. adjournment. “Talked out,” said the Prime Minister as he left his seat.

THE COMPULSORY PROVISION. POWER VESTED WITH BOARD. DEFINITE LEGAL OPINION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the debate on the committee’s report on the Dairy Produce Control Bill, Mr. Masters read the following extract from the opinion of Mr. Myers:— “The Minister seems to think the Government can exercise control over the board and that unless the Government consents to the exercise by the board of its compulsory powers under Clause 11 tlie board cannot exercise these compulsory powers. With this view I absolutely and entirely dicagree.

“The Minister, when asked to point la the provision in the Bill making prior consent essential, referred to Clause 10. That clause is simply a permissive clause authorising the Governor-General-in-Council, for the purpose of enabling the board effective-’ ly to control the export, sale and distribution of New Zealand dairy produce, acting under the powers conferred on him by the Customs Act, 1913, and its amendments, to prohibit the export from New Zealand of any dairy produce, save in accordance with the license to be issued by the board, or to be issued by the Minister of Agriculture, subject to such special conditions and restrictions as may be approved by the board. In other words, the Minister’s view is, apparently, that Clause 11 is dependent, upon Clause 10. In my opinion, this view is entirely erroneous It is perfectly plain to my mind that Clause 11 is absolutely independent of Clause 10. “In inv opinion the board’s powers under Clause 11 may be exercised entirely at the sole discretion of the board. The Government cannot in any way interfere or exercise any control over the board, in so far as the exercise of the board’s powers under Clause 11 is concerned. “It is quite possible under some circumstances, in the event of a compulsory pool being established under Clause 11, that prohibition by the Government of export in the manner mentioned in Clause 10 might be useful to the board, but such prohibition of export under Clause 10 is in no way essential, and in my opinion is not really necessary for the purpose of enabling the board to exercise its compulsory powers under Clause 11. In other words, 1 think the board has ample power and authority under Clause 11 to establish a compulsory pool entirely at. its own absolute discretion, without the assistance of a proclamation or Order-in-Council under Clause 10, 1 hough, as I have already said, such proclamation or Order-in-Council might be very useful to the board. “The Minister has said positively that it is not hin intention, or that of the

Government, that the board should have authority to exercise its compulsory powers under Clause 11 without the prior consent of the Government given by Order-in-Council. If that is the intention of the Minister and of the Government, my answer, without any doubt or hesitation, is that the Bill as drafted does not carry out the intention of the Government, but on the contrary, empowers the board to exercise its compulsory powers entirely ar, its own unfettered discretion, and without any prior consent or authority of the Government. If, therefore, the Minister’s intention as expressed by him is to be carried into effect, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that an amendment to the Bill is required in order to provide expressly that the powers conferred upon the board by Clause 11 shall not be exercised save without the consent or authority of an Order-in-Council previously issued. “It is at least probable that a number of those co-operative dairy companies which are supporting the Bill have been induced so to do by the representation made by the Minister or by the promoters of the scheme that the board cannot exercise its compulsory powers except with the prior consent of the Government. That certainly seems to be the view of the promoters of the pool, because Mr. Grounds, chairman of the dairy council, in his letter to the Evening Post, which appeared on the 23rd inst., says: The fuller power can only be exercised with the consent of the Government.’ By ‘fuller power’ he plainly means the power of compulsory pooling. I can only say that, in my emphatic opinion, if it has been represented to the cooperative dairy companies that the proposed board cannot exercise its compulsory powers except with the prior consnt of the Government, the position has been entirely misrepresented, no doubt perfectly innocently, and in the honest belief of the truth of the statement, but misrepresented none the less.”

“AU I can say is, that if any cooperative dairy companies are supporting the Bill in reliance upon such statement or representation, they are, in my opinion, living in a “fool’s paradise, ’ because unless the Bill is amended, it clearly, in my opinion, will not give effect to the statement expressed by the Minister as being his intention and that of the Government.

“I am quite aware that the present Bill is based upon the Meat Export Control Act, but the Government has not power and control under the Meat Export Control Act, which apparently it is thought t© have. It may indirectly have that power under the Meat Export Control Act because of the provision in that Act relating to finance as between the Government and the board, but in the Bill now before Parliament there are no such provisions and I express the opinion, without any doubt, that if the Bill passes in its present form the Government will have no power or control direct or indirect over the board in so far as it concerns the exercise by the board of the powers of compulsory pooling proposed to Ke conferred upon it by Clause 11.