Dairy Industry Plea For Fair Treatment

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30125, 8 May 1963, Page 16

Dairy Industry Plea For Fair Treatment

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 7. If the dairy industry could not be protected from what had been admitted were unfair trading practices overseas, it should be entitled to receive fair and reasonable treatment in New Zealand, said the deputy chairman of the Dairy Board (Mr R. A. Candy) today. He made this claim at the first sitting of the commission inquiring into the price of butterfat sold for New Zealand consumption. The Dairy Board is claiming a Government subsidy increase of 4|d per lb of butterfat—from the present 32d per lb subsidy to 36}d.

Sir Arthur Tyndall is chairman of the commission. The two other members are Mr G. G. Gibbes, of Wellington, and Mr L. Nisbet, of Dunedin. The industry did not seek a price that would continue as a premium price above that received for butter overseas, Mr Candy said. “If dumping was effectively curbed and prices improved overseas, the industry would not expect the local price to go up correspondingly.” He read a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) to the chairman of the Dairy Board (Mr A. C. Linton) agreeing that the dairy industry had a claim for an increased local price for butterfat Tire great fall m export butter prices had been caused by dumping from other countries whose governments paid high support prices for the industry, Mr Candy said “These high prices encouraged production which would otherwise not have eventuated. The Government pressed the injustice of the position with the United Kingdom and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. "Therefore, it is extremely unjust to insist that, because of unfair trading conditions

overseas, the industry must accept the consequences in the disposal of butter to consumers in New Zealand.” The last time there had been an official assessment of the cost of production of butterfat had been in 1957, said Mr Candy. Representatives of the Government and the industry had agreed on 38Vid per lb. There had been increases in farm working and maintenance costs since then, although farmers had increased the efficiency of their production. Therefore, he said, the industry was reasonable in preparing to accept 36&d per lb for butterfat, a figure below tife last agreed cost of production. The net reward to dairyfarmers had remained almost static since 1958, although on the average they had to increase production by 8 per cent, to maintain this. During the same period minimum award rates for adult male workers in the industry had risen by 11.3 per cent. “The prospects for the immediate future are much worse than has been the position from 1958 to the present. “If the industry were to receive the 36V*d per lb subsidy requested, retrospective to 1958, it would be able to liquidate its debt to the dairy industry reserve account. “Provided the present price for butter in the United Kingdom is maintained, it

would enable the industry to operate on a more economical basis.” If nothiiy was done to create a more conducive atmosphere for the industry, said Mr Candy, it would be “mismanagement of the worst order." Earlier, Mr G. S. Orr, counsel to assist the commission, had outlined the history of butterfat price legislation In New Zealand. The next sitting of the commission will be on Friday. Interested persons or organisations may still make submissions before May 20