TEMPERS FRAYED

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20915, 21 September 1939, Page 9

TEMPERS FRAYED

DEBATE IN HOUSE PRICE STABILISATION MR POLSON AND THE FARMERS (By Telegraph.—Special to Times) WELLINGTON, Wednesday A heated exchange between the Minister of Supply, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, and Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford) took place when Mr Poison was speaking in the House of Representatives to-day, during the debate on the Appropriation Bill, on the influence of price fixation for farmers’ produce on the agricultural economy of New Zealand.

Mr Poison said the methods adopted in fixing prices for farmers' produce were almost Gilbertian. “I don’t know whether the Minister responsible is a

relative of the Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fa\ie,” he added. Mr S. G. Holland (Opposition— Christchurch North) : He is a partner. “The Minister is a partner in the most grotesque burlesque we have ever seen,” Mr Poison asserted.

Mr Sullivan: If you will he rude, I will be rude, too.

“•The Minister loses his temper on the slightest occasion,” said Mr Poison. “If he wants to mix it with me, I will do it, and he can have it willingly.” At this stage the Speaker intervened, and said it should he remembered that he would have something to say. Mr Poison: But a threat has been thrown at me across the floor of the House. The Speaker: The hon. member has no right to talk about mixing it with the Minister. Mr Poison: But a threat has been held out to me. The Speaker: I think the hon. member would be well advised to proceed with his speech. Mr Poison: 1 will do so under provocation and at a disadvantage. Thrown Out of Balance? Continuing his speech, Mr Poison said it seemed that the Dominion’s farming economy was going to be thrown out of balance. The Government had fixed the price for supplies of meat, beyond which farmers could not receive anything. Cases had arisen where farmers had been called upon to make refunds.

“I am only anxious to see the farmer get a square deal, no more and no less,” added Mr Poison. “Nobody should make money out of this war.” Government Members: The farmers did in the last war.

Mr Poison: Many farmers were poorer at the end of the war than at the beginning. 1 did not make money out of the last war and came out of it worse off than I was at the start.

Rumours were circulating in Wellington, Mr Poison continued, that the farmers were going to be squeezed white as far as prices for primary produce were concerned. He hoped the Government would realise that the Dominion's economy demanded that at least reasonable prices should be paid for export production. The only man . unable io pass on a rise in costs was the fanner. Minister’s Reply The Government intended to prevent profiteering and exploitation, but that would not prevent an increase in prices at the point where there had been an increase in costs, said the Minister of Supply, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, in replying to points raised by Mr Poison. “As far as I can see the whole arrangement is a replica of the Imperial organisation for the conduct of the war,” Mr Sullivan continued. “Price fixation is part of the plan. Conferences have been held with the interested parties with a view to framing an acceptable plan, and, while we have not solved all the problems, we have advanced toward understanding. It is generally recognised that there shall not be any exploitation, and we have stated that this country is not going to profiteer at the expense of the United Kingdom. Meeting Higher Costs “There is not going to be any exploitation of the country by the primary producers, irrespective of who they may be,” said Mr Sullivan. “That is not to say that the Government is going to behave stupidly and irrationally in regard to prices. “The Price Investigation Tribunal has been instructed that if there is a fair and honest increase in costs, then this will have to be recovered in the price of the commodity, provided the industry concerned is not in a position to carry it . A fair, honest, just and upright administration is visualised in regard to price fixation. “There cannot he an unfair discrimination between one section of the community and another, and if one section has to be subjected to regulation and control then the farmer must he subjected to similar control, too.” %