The Minister has an Estimate here for which he has certain responsibility along with the Minister for Agriculture. If we are to take the measure of information given to the House by the last speaker, it is quite obvious that as far as he is concerned he knows nothing whatever about this Estimate. The Estimate differs from that of last year in a great many particulars. In last year's Estimate there were three sub-heads—A, B, and C, and the Estimate was for approximately £2,750,000. This Estimate has got seven sub-heads, and it is for a little over £2,000,000. The Minister who has just spoken referred to a change in trade in Great Britain. The change is against this country— definitely and disastrously against this country—for the simple reason that there was a market there, until Government policy interfered with it, for the sale of fat cattle, which has diminished to a remarkable extent. That sale of fat cattle enabled us to consume something that we grew in this country, and the consequence of losing that will be that there will be a reduction in the consumption of those cereals which it paid the farmers to grow and consume on their own land. The Estimate gives no information whatever as to what the purpose of the Vote amounts to. A couple of years ago, when proceedings took place in court, even the judge had to agree that there was no statutory authority or regulation in connection with the distribution of this money. That is not before us to-night.
There is one thing of importance in connection with this Estimate, and that is that the reductions which have taken place are reductions which strike at a fundamental part of agriculture. Perhaps that is not the correct term, but in view of the length of time which the Minister has taken, the short time that is left at our disposal, and the little information we got, we cannot be too precise about our exact terms. The fat cattle trade in this country was very important to agricultural economy. It has been very seriously injured, and the Ministry was well aware years ago of the injury which was being done to that cattle trade. A British Bill was introduced—the Cattle Bill—which provided for the payment of a bounty on cattle in Great Britain of something like 5/- a cwt. That Bill provided for the payment of that bounty on cattle from this country or any other country which were three months in Great Britain. It is obvious that as far as Great Britain is concerned the British Government appreciated the value of the provision of fat cattle. Our Ministry was wrong from the commencement in connection with this business, so they overlooked and discounted the value of the fat cattle trade. Ministers were present at Ottawa. The Minister was present there when New Zealand got a quota. The quota that they got enabled them to send over 400,000 cwts. They sent 700,000 cwts. the first year and 1,000,000 the following year, or the equivalent of about 50,000 head of cattle the first year and 100,000 in the next year. That is a matter which the Minister would do well to consider. If he is anxious to have tillage in this country, the best possible use for the tillage is to send it out from the farm on four legs. It is the most economical. It will give the best employment. It will mean no loss of money to this country, and it will be a very much surer method of disposing of our tillage produce than anything else the Minister can think of. It will be far more productive than even his cereals mixture, and there would be less need for his Cereals Act if that policy were to be pursued.
The Minister is not unaware of the fact that by reason of those tariffs against our horses in Great Britain the horse trade has been very seriously interfered with. A number of prosecutions have taken place in Great Britain which may militate against the purchase of our horses by those whom we were accustomed to deal with. There is now in this Estimate no provision for a bounty on horses. The Minister may say that so far as the horse trade is concerned it is in exactly the same position as last year. That would be substantially correct if we were to ignore or remove from our minds all the prosecutions that have taken place. When Governments prosecute in respect of Customs evasions, they are not too exact as to their justice in connection with those prosecutions. I have heard of one case of a man, who, in all good faith, bought a horse here for, let us say, £ x. He paid duty on the £x, and, over in England, they pursued the horse's pilgrimage through the country and found that he was sold for a multiple of £x, and the dealer was called upon to pay the duty on the sale price of the horse. It may be justified from the point of view of the British Customs, and it may be that the Revenue Commissioners here would take the same view, but the situation is very unsatisfactory, so unsatisfactory that it is quite possible that the real loss will ultimately fall upon the producers of horses in this country.
That particular disadvantage falls principally on the hunter and blood-stock horse. It is not so likely in the case of blood-stock by reason of the fact that a certificate of the sales will be taken, but, in the case of hunters, men go around the country and, in all good faith, may buy five or six horses, paying a good price for them, and they may not sell all the horses they buy. In examining the ultimate results to those engaged in horse dealing, it has the flavour of being a very profitable occupation, but one seldom sees a very big estate left behind by those engaged in it.
Although the position with regard to horses may be claimed by the Minister to be the same as it was last year, the position with regard to cattle is not exactly the same. In the first place, by reason of the policy adopted by the Government, and, secondly, by reason of the fact that the British agriculturists are now anxious to buy stores, there is a better price for cattle than there was 12 months ago. It is not due to the policy of the Government except in one respect. That is item B in this Estimate, which was a fatal policy adopted by the Government—the bounty on the export of calf-skins. It would have been well for this country if such a policy had never been indulged in. It is against nature; it is against common-sense, and it is against the best interests of the country. It would have been far better for the people if they had been able to produce another 200,000 or 300,000 head of cattle and get the advanced price, or something approaching it for them, than the miserable 10/- or 12/- allowed on calf-skins. The Minister ought to go into the question I have raised in connection with the bounty on horses. There is plenty of room, even with this Estimate, to allow for a reconsideration of the decision to take off that bounty. To my mind, it is quite possible that the Minister will not spend much more than a moiety of the money that is provided here, and it would be well in the circumstances if the best use could be made of the money available in this connection.
