What form the aid scheme?

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33750, 24 January 1975, Page 8

What form the aid scheme?

Farmers will today hear the Government's proposals for helping their industry.

The over-riding need is to put extra funds directly into the farmer’s hands. The Government is to be commended for holding the price of fertiliser in the face of rising raw material costs, but the availability of fertiliser at a reasonable price loses much of its point if the fanner does not have the money to buy it.

If the farmer is given this money to keep his head above water it will inevitably be passed on to the transport operators and the aerial top-dressers and other servicing industries and give the economy the boost that is needed if a mounting unemployment problem is to be avoided.

The Prime Minister, Mr Rowling, has spoken of the Government’s proposals to aid fanning as being “fairly expensive,’’ but in the context that a viable farming industry is essential for the well being of other sections of the community an exercise to aid fanning is not really expensive at all and vitally necessary. How is the farmer to be given this assistance? The present Government when in Opposition was critical of

the sheep retention incentive grant scheme, payable on sheep numbers, that gave the pastoral industry a much needed boost in 197172 after a series of difficult years and when the industry’s morale was low. The grants helped to maintain stock numbers to take advantage of the upturn in farming fortunes that was soon to follow. Assuming that the Government has decided to put

money into the farmer’s hand, it will have an impact similar to the stock retention scheme even if it takes a different form. A similar effect could be achieved by the Government taking responsibility for some of the costs borne by farmers. The meat inspection charges paid on stock killed for export is a case in point, and the Royal Commission into the meat

industry recommended that the Government should pay the cost of this service. The Government might also see fit to bear some of the cost of meeting meat hygiene requirements, which are reflected back to the farmer in his killing charges. The news that freezing co. ipanies are seeking a further increase in killing and processing charges underlines the need for the

farmer to be compensated for the increasing costs he is facing in the same way that the wage and salary earner has been compensated for increases in living costs.

The Government might also see fit to supplement farm produce prices to ensure a better return to the farmer. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr Moyle, was anxious last year for the Meat Board to guarantee the producer a $6.50 return for his prime 301 b lamb. The Government might help in this direction and also to ensure that the return to the grower for wool is maintained at a reasonable level.

The Wool Marketing Corporation has done a valuable job for the farmer in holding up his prices in implementing its flexible price buying-in policy, but a decision must soon be made as to the extent to which the stockpile is to be built up bearing in mind the need not to deny a reasonable flow of wool to the textile industry, not to lose valuable overseas exchange earnings and not to create a stock of wool which will unnecessarily restrain prices in the future. Some other method of handling this situation may be necessary. It would be surprising if what measures the Government announces were not linked with its plans for stabilising farm incomes. The Government has a committee looking into this now. Farmers generally would endorse the principle of income stability, but any such scheme will need to be worked out in close association with them and unhurriedly and so that the farmer retains as wide a measure of freedom and independence as possible.