FOR AND AGAINST

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19887, 16 May 1936, Page 12

FOR AND AGAINST

MOCK PARLIAMENT. j t I 1 PRODUCE BILL DEBATED. ! 1 THE COMPENSATED PRICE. | I | | I The mock parliament resumed its sitting’s on Thursday at Toorak Chamb- | | ers. A large and appreciative audi- . ence listened to a lively debate upon ' the questions of the guaranteed price | and the compensated price. Mr Mar- | ous James was appointed “ Deputy- ; | Speaker.” In the absence of the “ Prime Min- L ister.” Mr A. Lees, the “deputy Prime 9 Minister,” Mr R. Smith, continued the i debate upon the second reading of the Primary Products Marketing Bill, lie stated that the farmer must realise that if the Government took over the responsibility of giving hhn a guaranteed price, then the Government must, take over the productive side of the industry. It was necessary that a fair price should be given for primary products, and the guaranteed price would be given out of the funds of the Reserve Bank. The Government would not divulge what the price would be. The object of the Rili was to allow a decent standard of li\ing for all. By stabilising the farmer everybody would benefit, and M the people on the land would be free, «| and not as at present, slaves to the g| laud. The “ Leader of the Opposition,” Mr Douglas Seymour, said the questions raised by the acting-Prime Minister called for a reply that would take 12 months to deliver. Money and Trade. The specious fallacies of the Bill are seen because the framers of the legislation fail to understand the the- ( ones of money and trade. The very name of the guaranteed price Is i \\rang: a third party is necessary fori anv guarantee.” stated Mr Seymour.; "Zi :l!mfnatc the third party, as the Government has done, the guaranteed price is meaningless eyewash. The Government does not trust the farmer, and they cannot do away with the j speetaeulator; speculation requires two ; parties.” Mr Seymour pointed out that in- i creased prices mean increased costs,! and less consumption. “ I-t is like the Tower of Babel, which has a spiral stairway up to the top. and leads to nowhere.'' Money throughout the ; •.or Id must have a definite relation- ! ship, and these wildcat schemes of !i ll > Government destroy the value of our rnancial relationships,” he eon- ; eluded. The Compensated Price. Mr G. Hunter expressed the opinion that the advocates of the compensated price were desirous of assisting the Government to be of service to the farmer, and, through it. the people of the Dominion. The basis of the guaranteed price was wrong. The right method was to base the price on the buying price level. The methods of the guaranteed price would make costs rise and thereby eliminate all benefits that would otherwise accrue to the farmer. The farmer could not afford to go wrong: he could not afford the opposition to be on the Treasury benches. Let protected tariffs be taken off, and other tariffs be reduced, thereby reducing costs, and benefiting the community at large. “The lamier is only asking for justice,” concluded the member. Several members spoke for and against the Bill. Some advocated protection from the exploiters and speculators; others said that the Government was in a fog. while the farming members of the House stressed the wrong methods of the party in power, and the iniquity of the law relating , to mortgages. “ Independent's ” Views. Mr J. H. Penniket (independent) supported the principle of the compensating price. He said a guaranteed and fixed price based on an average of j sterling prices over a period of past years was at best an arbitrary method of building up the farmers’ income and would not bear any necessary relationship to present costs which would from their nature be fluctuating. The trouble was that the farmer bought his requirements in a protected market. in the Dominion at a higher price I level than that ruling in the United j Kingdom where his produce was sold. | Much of the increased cost was due to tariffs and though the Farmers’ j Unions and other organisations had in kde repe ited efforts to secure drastic tariff reductions vested interests working through the party political system had proved too strong for them. Both Great Britain and the Dominion had efficient systems ot* recording price levels by means of wider numbers published at regular intervals, and as i the bulk of our dairy export produce j w;i. sold in Great Britain it was «v simple, matter to compute the amount of extra purchasing power necessary ; to ensure that the people could buy j Hi,' imports which should ho normally ■ exchanging for our exports. In this way the farmer's income would rise I ami fall in ratio to his costs and the i fear of rising costs wiping out any benefit from a guaranteed price would no longer exist. “ The Bill ” Carried. “The Speaker." Mr lb 11. Watts, in his maiden speech. reviewed, at j length. the measures introduced by j the late Government relating to the relief of the farmer. The mortgage relief legislation meant that the bulk of the produce of the farmer was sold f,.r interest. He was disappointed with the present Bill because the Government was falling into the error of their predecessors in dealing with individual cases instead of the cause of the whole trouble. , it \fter the “ Leader of the OpposiHon ” and the ' Aotinß-Prtme Minister had addressed the House, a vole was taken, but the " Deputy Speaker ordered the members to the lobbies. The division occurred at 10.20 p.m.. in favour of the second reeding of the Bill by seven votes _to_four. The House adjourned until 1.-to pm. on Tuesday. I ■' -