MARKETING BILL.

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19880, 8 May 1936, Page 7

MARKETING BILL.

BROADCAST DEBATE. CRITICISM AND REPLY. As the turn of events did not enable the concluding speeches on the Primary Products Marketing Bill to be broadcast from the House of Representatives, two speakers, the Hon. W. Nash, Minister of Finance, and the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Opposition, were heard over the air from all national stations last evening. Both spoke from the 2YA studio. Mr Forbes, who -spoke first said the Bill was designed to give effect to what the Labour Party had termed at the last election guaranteed prices. It had been correctly described by the present Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Lee Martin, as a tremendous experiment. That would not be such a serious matter if it were not experimenting in the means of livelihood of thousands of men and women carrying on the dairy industry of the Dominion. The failure of the experiment would be a national disaster. Based on Finance. They were told the purpose of the Bill was to provide a payable price to the dairy farmer for his produce, irrespective of whether the produce realised this price on the market or not. The whole scheme was based upon the finance for providing that payable price. Provision would have to be made for a possible lengthy period of low prices and, therefore, for a dellcit running into many millions, to be carried by the Reserve Bank. The Government had brought in a new system in using the Reserve Bank to provide finance for its undertaking. That was another tremendous experiment, and it was not surprising that the dairy farmer felt a little doubtful when his future was subject to two such large experiments. Mr Forbes contended that the industry was a monument, to the men who had been its leaders and the marketing should be handled by them. He maintained that New Zealand's standing and the good feeling shown by Britain was in danger of being detrimentally affected by the legislationBetween 1933 and 1935 New Zealand’s yearly export of butter to Britain had increased by ID,OOO tons and Australia's by 20,500 tons. In the latter year the total import had been 80,000 tons above what, it was estimated, the market could profitably absorb in 1933. It was easy to see that the whole problem was becoming more and more difficult. Australia’s keen competition also had to be reckoned with. He criticised the Minister for not delaying the legislation in order fully to ascertain the wishes of the industry. Minister's Reply. In reply the Minister quoted extracts from statements by the Prime Minister and himself in 1934 to show that the Labour Party Lad openly and repeatedly advocated the measure embodied in the Bill- V The previous Government, he said, had always taken the view that the <*■ slump was inevitable and was caused * by forces quite outside the control of the Dominion, but the Labour Party entirely disagreed with that. It was quite unjust to suggest that the country had not been consulted about this Bill as reference to the Labour Party’s manifesto of last year would show. The Minister recalled how he had met and consulted with the dairy conference over the bill, and he surveyed the 14 questions that delegates ' had put to him and the answers he had returned. In outlining the provisions of tho Bill, the Minister/ said that its only objective was to give an adequate return to the man who did the work, whether on the farm, in the dairy factory or on the railway and the ship that carried the produce, lie denied that one purpose was to get rid of the Executive Commission of Agriculture. Immediate Payment. One great advantage of the scheme to the farmer, said Mr Nash, was that, through co-ordination with the Reserve Rank Amendment Act the bank would make available money for the pay-out immediately the goods were on the ship. Thus the farmer knew the price that he would receive for .12 months ahead. The proceeds of the sale would be paid in to the Reserve Bank in London, and would be set against the guaranteed prices. If there was a de : flciency it would be treated as an overdraft in the dairy industry account, if there was a surplus it would remain in the account, and the Government had given a pledge that it would not be taken out except for the advantage of the dairy industry. It had been said that the Bill gave y the Ciovernment too much power, hut the measure merely conferred the power to buy produce and gave it the right to take powers which the previous Government had given to various boards. Compensated Price. As regards I lie "compensatory price,” Mr Nash said he knew the bona tides of the man who had suggested it, although it had come from two sources. The argument against such a plan was that it was difficult to base a price to the farmers on prices in the country where I lie produce was sold, espeeialy as diiTcrent returns would ho obtained from markets in different countries. After expressing his opinion that bilateral agreements would he possible to negotiate lie added lhat the Government was determined lo show the quickest way through Hie maze of darkness which had led to the destruction of essential things which the world greatly needed. DEALING IN PRODUCE. AGENCIES CLOSED. Advice that some of the overseas dairy produce importing llrms are elo< tug their New Zealand agencies ... July 31 has been received in Auckland It is regarded as practically certain that agencies In the Dominion will not be required when the New Zealand Government takes over tho ownership ol all dairy produce. Although some agents have received notice, tho position of many remains uncertain and advice is awaited from ment" allows the overseas ilrmsVper . font, commission, a-, ;hought likely, a r saving of about £50,000 a year will made.