IN COMMITTEE

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19879, 7 May 1936, Page 7

IN COMMITTEE

OPPOSITION QUESTIONS.

OTHER PRODUCE AFFECTED? DAIRY FACTOBIES‘ CONTRACTS. WELLINGTON. \Vednesday. When the Primary Produce Market—ing Biii reached the committee stages in the House of Representatives the Leader of the Opposition, the Right lion. G. “1. Forbes, requested the Government to give a clear indication whether it intended to take over the marketing of primary products other than dairy produce. .\lr Forbes expressed the opinion that the administration of the Depart—ment of Marketing which was to be set up under the Bill would he a full< time job. It hart been suggested that the portfolio might go to .\lr Nash. but it‘ he was going to take over ‘hoth the portfolios of Marketing and Finance, one 01‘ the two, probzrbly Marketing, must suffer.

The AYiHiéwx- of Labour, the Hon. H. 'l‘. Armstrong: The Rt. Hon. .\lr Coates was the whole quenmleut.

.\lr Forbes said that the Department of Marketing when set up was sure to endeavour to extend its influence to other branches of primary production, and that would be resented by the produrers. ile suggested that. the Bill should he so amended as to apply only to dairy produce. Authority to Control. The lion. A. liamilibn (Opposition—\Vallaee) asked whether there was sumeient power in the Bill to enable the Minister to take controi of any other of the primary industries, or whether— that would necessitate the introduction of another Bill. It appeared. however. that Part 1 of the 11111 gave the Minister authority to noqutrn any primary produce. .\lr Hamilton referred to the fact that the dairy season closed on July 31, and asked whether the factories would the able to ship any produce sold up to that quite. Would the Minister prevent them from carrying out eontrarls made in that direction. or would they have to get his authority? Mr Hamilton called attention to the fact that primary produce was not defined in the Bill. \ ‘ ‘ “This is a marketing problem, mat a produring problem.“ said Mr Nash. “The farmer rauuoi do the marketing. in the past it has been done for him by others exti'aneoUs to the industry. lie has been the victim of agencies \\‘ll||‘il have not always operated in his interests. ' . Mr 11. S. S. Kyle (Opposition—Riecarton): Don‘t you think he will be a victim now? The Minister: No. Those who will do the marketing- will live responsible to him. The farmer put the Government in office.

Mr Kyle: He did not. The Minister: It is all 'balderdash to argue otherwise. .

Further Power Needed. Replying to Mr Hamilton. the Ministor said that the provisions of the Bill could not be. extended to apply to other industries until power was given thy Parliament. The Government had power to whip any kind of producc because that had been contained in Acts passed by tho i‘revtous Gov—ernment. Mr Hamilton: But you cannot assume ownership of meat, wool, etc.. without another Bill? .\lr Nash: No. In reply to Mr Hamilton‘s question concerning the dairy factories, the Minister said that where products manufactured before August, 1 were concerned, factories would have all facilities to market, so long as they did not conflict with the Government’s policyi The Marketing Department would in certain circumstances act as an agent in carrying out contracts on produce manufactured prior to August 1. Sanotlty of Contract. Unless something at the nature pro; video for in the Bill were adopted there was no possibility of farmers getting out of debt. was the View advanced by .\lr It. M. Rurshworth (Country—Bay of Islands). Through the operations of the Bill, said Mr Rushworih, the dairy farmer might be able to pay adequate wages for his labour and attract people from cities. but the speaker did not want that to happen at. the expense of any other set-lion ot’ the community. Mr Rushworth declared that that section 01‘ the people entrusted with the distribution oi‘ the produce ‘had failed. and the producer had tried by the cooperative system to do what the busi—ness section, which had let him down, had failed to do. Suppliers had their franchise returned to them under the Bill. .\lr nnshworth said he would like to see a complete. restoration of the summy of rontrart. whlrh he con-tt-ndmi would go a 10113:.“ way toward re—storing confident-e and stability. \Vllat “as the alternative to the Bill? There was the. Adjustment Act passed by the last Pnrliann‘nt. with its budgetary control. courts-ration of equities and st-rt‘dom. He would rattler be dead than live under those renditions. The alternative was more dreadful than that ol' thr had things alleged to be in the hill hctore the tlouse. Farmers to Blame. _\ suggestion that some of the dairy farmers of the Dominion had hrought on thmnsvhes the serious plight about \\llll'tl they were complaining;’ was made l~._v .\h- it. .\. Wright tlndependent~ \\'rttington Suhnrhsl. supporting the nnu‘ntlmrnt to the Bill.

“\\'hon (imrs were gum] they did not take mlvunhge of the opportunity to my uIT Hmir mortgages. hut speculum! in the purchase of more land at. high prices. 01' in some uthex‘ Wily. nppm'vnlly In tho holief that the good limvs \ern In 1:151 («11' ever," said .\ll‘ \\'l'i:.:hL 111' :ulllml 11ml he would not unmlmnn Ihv dairy l’m-nu-r in trouble lm'uugh no {null 01' his own.