DAIRY POOL.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 October 1922, Page 5

DAIRY POOL.

SOME PROGRESS MADE.

HOUSE RECEIVES REPORT. OPPOSITION OVERCOME. AMENDMENTS TO BILL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The dairy pool scheme was again before the House this afternoon, when members resumed the interrupted debate on the motion moved by Mr. 0. Hawken (Egmont) “that the report of Dairy Produce Export Control Bill do He on the table,” and the amendment moved by Mr. Masters (Stratford)

“chat the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration.”

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton), speaking as a member of the committee, said the supporters of the pool had most vague ideas as to what it meant, but notwithstanding this proposals were now made to give it effect. He believed it was going to be administered on the lines of the meat pool, which they said had been a success. His opinion of it was that it was the greatest piece of political humbug and hypocrisy ever foisted on the producers, and the claims made for its success were altogether false. The Argentine and Australia, which had no pool, had got just as big an increase in prices, and just as great a reduction in freights as New Zealand producers had.

Mr. J. Dickson (Chalmers) supported the proposal to send the, Bill back to the committee and deferring it till next session. The Premier had stated that there was a, six to one majority m favour of the Bill, but his experience

was that there were seven to one against it. It was a dangerous experiment to pass the Bill before it received mature consideration. THE FEAR OF COMPULSION. Mr. W. T. Jennings (Waitomo) thought the division of opinion amongst producers over the Bill was due to want of confidence in many of its promoters. He favoured the Bill going back to the committee.

Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) opposed the passing of the Bill until had an opportunity to study it. Some of them knew practically nothing about it. Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said that while members were not familiar with the nature of the Bill as revised, he felt convinced it contained power of compulsion, and before any section of the community was coerced it should have an opportunity of stating its views, if the compulsory clauses were enforced it would mean fighting a great trust at Home, which could buy New Zealand out lock, stock and barrel. Mr. Massey: We can hold our own. Mr. E. Newman (Manawatu) defended the creation of the meat pool, contending its benefits were real and tangible. In this Bill they were prepared to fight combination with combination, and. he hoped they would pass the Bill and get on with the business. Mr. G. Witty (Riccarton) said the best way to get on with the business was to kill the Bill.

Mr. Massey: “If the Bill is to be blocked I am not going on.” > Mr. Witty: “If 1 thought I could kill the Bill I would talk for an hour.” Mr. Massey: “Well go on. Proceeding, Mr. Witty deprecated the claims made on behalf of the Meat Board. Th? Premier had done more* to reduce freights than the board; it was all a question of supply and demand. THE DIVISION LIST. The debate then closed, and on a division the amendment was defeated by 43 votes to 30. For the amendment (30). —Atmore, J. Me. Dickson, Edie, Forbes, Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Isitt, Jennings, Luke, Lysnar, McCallum, McCombs, Malcolm, Masters, Mitchell, Munro, Ngata, Seddon, Sidey, R. W. Smith, S. G. Smith, Statham, Sullivan. Thacker, Veitch. Wilford, Witty, Wright. Against the amendment (43). —Anderson, Bartram, Bitchener, Bollard. Burnett, Coates, Craigie, J. S. Dickson, E. Dixon, Field, Glenn, Guthrie, A. Hamilton, J. R. Hamilton. Harris, Hawken. Herries, Hockley, Hudson, Hunter, Jones, Lee, McLeod, McNieol, Mackenzie, Mander, Massey, Nash, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Parr, Parry, Poland, Pomare. Potter, Reed, Sir R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Savage, Sykes, Uru, W : J'ams, Young.

Mr. Hawken, in reply, said the total quantity of butter graded in New Zealand amounted to 44,117 tons. The quantity graded by companies in favour of the pool totalled 30,907 tons, against 9013 tons. Of cheese, the quantity graded was 63,317 tons. Those in favour of the pool provided 30,237 tons, against 14.364. The percentage in support was sixty-five against twenty-two. . The balance who did not express an opinion might be said either to be neutral or in favour of the proposal. He eulogised the work of the Meat Board, which had saved the producers of the Dominion hundreds of thousands of pounds, and he declared that if th? Bill was not passed this session nothing could be done for two years, because the necessary steps could not he taken unless a board was set up. The motion was agreed to on the voices. CHANGES IN BILL. PROTECTION OF CONTRACTS. (By Wire—Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. Several amendments have been made in the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill by the special committee that considered the measure. A new clause provides that in addition to the nine representatives of the producers, the dairy control board may include one representative of persons I engaged in the business as manufacturers of dairy produce, or as sellers of the produce outside New Zealand, whether as agents or on their own account.

The clause protecting existing contracts has been extended to apply to produce exported up to August 31, 1923. A new section provides that the board shall not exercise its powers of control so as to affect prejudicially the operation of any contract of an agency in respect of the sale of dairy produce out of New Zealand if the contract was made in writing prior to October 1, 1922.

The maximum amount of the levy to be collected by Ibe board has been fixed at one-eighth of a penny per pound on butter and one-sixteenth of a penny per £ound on eha«»«