“ERA OF STABILITY”

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 183, 1 May 1936, Page 12

“ERA OF STABILITY”

Outlook For New Zealand’s Primary Producers z FAIR REWARD FOR FARMERS The desire of the Government 'to stabilise the position of the primary producer by giving him security of price and tenure and Io remove the uncertainty Io which lie lias been subjected for so long was stressed by the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. W. Lee Martin. The Government, he said, was seeking a way toward a better and brighter future for the producer. The Minister expressed surprise that Sir Alfred Ransom should have said the Government intended to repudiate its responsibilities. Sir Alfred Ransom: What are you going to do. then? Mr. Martin: IVe are going to face up to our responsibilities. The last Government had paid out £13,600.000 to the farmers, the Minister continued, yet the Dairy Commission had found that in spite of those grants 50 per cent, of the dairy-farm-ers were bankrupt. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Opposition, Pa tea) : Do you believe it?

The Minister: One thing I am certain of is that you do not realise the number of farmers who are in serious financial difficulties. “It is evident,” Mr. Martin continued, “that the member for Pahiatua is labouring under some difficulty because of the manner in which the Minister of Finance dealt with the Bill last night. He was under the impression that we were going to disclose certain things—the price for instance. IVe have not disclosed the price because we are not placing ourselves in the hands of the ‘smart crowd’.” Mr. IV. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, IVaitomo) : You are in the hands of the smart crowd all right. “The member for Pahiatua is not representing the viewpoint of the farmers in his district or of any other district in the Dominion,” the Minister continued. “I had hoped that he would have given us some assistance, but it has not been forthcoming. The dairy-farmer has for a long time been the scapegoat of the speculators and (he manipulators, and we are bringing down this legislation to stabilise his position.” More Production, Lower Returns. Mr. Martin said the previous Government had made several attempts to improve the precarious position of the dairy-farmer, but the legislation it passed had not and could not meet the changes which had taken place during the past few years and for which the primary producer was in no way responsible. The very fact that, the people rejected the last Government at the general election in November was evidence that its legislation was not acceptable. Although the farmer in the years had increased z his output of butterfat his gross receipts had fallen. There was nothing wrong with the farmer, for he had increased his production. The trouble was with the price he received. The object of the Bill, said Mr. Martin, was to ensure to the producers an adequate remuneration for services they rendered to the community, not a super remuneration nor a remuneration for o’ever people. The Government contended that those who created the wealth were entitled to a fair share of the reward for their work. The income of the competent producer of dairy products should not. be dependent on clever dealing tricky practices, or speculation in land.

“We believe the only way to do this,” he added, “is to stabilise the minimum income of the farmer so that he can meet his working expenses and enjoy a standard of living related to tlie time, energy, skill and experience used by him in producing the commodity necessary for the balanced progress of the Dominion.” Dairy Commission’s Finding. Reference was made by the Minister to tlie Dairy Industry Commission’s examination of proposals for the payment of a guaranteed price for butterfat and its objections to those proposals. The Minister said that in the light of the knowledge available to the commission in 1934 no fault could bo found with it for coming to the conclusion it did. The commission did not know that in 1936 there would be in office in New Zealand a Government which would make credit available in proportion to the goods produced in the country.

The financial difficulty having been overcome, the need for first building up au insurance fund which the commission considered necessary before a scheme of guaranteed prices could be launched no longer existed. The difficulty which the commission thought to be unsurinountable would in actual practice present no difficulty, that was the basis of fixing, tlie guaranteed price. So fur as the legislation was concerned there was nothing new about it. When the previous Government was reducing salaries and wages the late member for Lyttelton had advocated a stabilised price for the producers, and he had effectively demonstrated that to pursue a policy tlie late Government was intent upon pursuing would lead to disaster. Reductions in salaries and wages had hit the farmer and increased his difficulties. The member for Pahiatua had failed to realise we were entering upon a new era —an era that was destined to produce marvellous developments so far as the work and leisure of the people was concerned. The Government's legislation would give to tlie primary producer a stability and security he had not enjoyed for many years, give him more leisure I han he hurl been accustomed to, and enable him Io meet his obligations. OTHER SPEAKERS Desire For Referendum Tlie hope that before the Government put the Bill through it would allow the farmers to take a referendum ou it, was expressed by Mr. H. G. Dickie (Opposition. I’atea). He claimed that if the industry were allowed to take a vote on the measure the decision would relieve the Government of responsibility and, if tlie proposals were turned down, of its election pledges. “In Britain none of tlie marketing schemes for primary produce are pht into operation until two-thirds of the mon interested in tlie particular industry signify their agreement.” Mr. Dickie said. ‘That was what was done with the huge milk marketing scheme there. Yet nothing like that is being done here. The farmers are

not being allowed any say whatever. In Britain they have the additional right to pull out of the scheme if there is a bare majority against It. Where are the democrats on the Labour benches who have always voted for referendums? Where is the referendum on this occasion?” Mr. Dickie mentioned Ihe effect, of the scheme on share-milkers. It was well known that under the share-milk-ing scheme farmers changed their abode frequently, pften they started in business on their own account. How were they to be recompensed for their labours if any surplus funds from the sale of the produce overseas were to bo paid Into some account and more or less lost Io them!

The British policy of long-term agreements was io be put into effect very shortly, Mr. Dickie said. Bonusfed industries would be taken into account when specific duties or levies were being made. The British Minister of Agriculture had promised (hat when those agreements were being decided and he was able to place levies on produce coming into his country, he would be able to recoup the British Treasury for the money he had spent on primary industries there. It was particularly desirable that New Zealand should .hvac a elean sheet when that point was reached. Referring to the price to be paid, Mr. Dickie said it was supposed to be a deep secret, but it was purely a matter of simple arithmetic. On the eight years basis, on a weighted average, butter would be a little over 1/a pound and cheese about 131 pence. The prospects for cheese this season pointed to a price of about 12Jd., and if the Government was going to pay only an extra Id. on that, the result was not. going to be much for the producers to grasp at. “We are going to buy the whole of our produce distributed through one seller —the Government,” continued Mr. Dickje. “The Government may have an unconscious bias toward some of its trades union friends at Home, and thus antagonise the British buyer. Anyone who does anything to imperil that source of consumption is doing this country a grave disservice.” “Charter of Economic Liberty.” “After listening to the swan song of the last, honourable gentleman, on,e feels like saying ‘Come, sing to me’.” said the Minister of Lands, Hon. F. Langstone, who followed Mr. Dickie. Guaranteed prices, said the Minister, would give the people of New Zealand a New Zealand income to meet New Zealand expenditure. The ex-Minister of Lands had stated that the Coalition Government had assisted the farmers to the extent of £13,600,000. That worked out at £3 a week to every farmer, in addition to what he took off the land. “Why the devil then are the farmers so hard up?” asked Mr. Langstone, amid a roar of laughter. For years, he said, the producers of New Zealand had been endeavouring to arrange for satisfactory marketing, but their efforts had been negatived by the attitude taken up by Mr. Coates when in England in 1926. His actions had resulted in a loss to the farmers of over £2,000,000 a year. The Labour Party did not hold with the policy of creating scarcity to raise prices. Labour would see that there was plenty and that the prices were right. It would protect the farmers from speculators and gamblers in the Old World. I The great feature of guaranteed prices, said the Minister, was that they not only stabilised the market in the interests of the farmer, but they gave the Government control of overseas exchanges. For the first time in history the Government would become the trader. When previous Ministers went Home they were penniless, and in the position of a man with no money in his pockets being shown over a big shop. “Our Ministers will own the exchange,” continued Mr. Langstone. “When they go Home they will be able to say: ‘Here is your money. We wauti to trade with you, because you bought goods from us.’ There is only one effective method of making agreements, and that is as between Government and Government. Little factories and business concerns can only make lollypop agreements. “IVe are going to give the New Zealand farmer a fair deal, and we are going to. bring the producer here and the consumer in the Old Country closer together,” added the Minister. “Wonderful benefits will accrue from our policy, upon whicli the eyes of the world are now centred. The world is watching to see whether we will succeed, because it may show a way to the nations that are now stumbling in the darkness.

“We will make social conditions in this country such that immigrants will be attracted like.a magnet to a needle. This Bill is really a charter of economic liberty.” Rewards for Farmer. The purpose of the Bill, said Mr. A. C. A. Sexton (Country, Franklin) -was to assure adequate remuneration for the farmer. The reasons why he had not received this remuneration in the past were many. Customs duties had been growing increasingly burdensome during the last 40 years because local manufacturers had demanded more protection. Tltis raised the cost both of imported articles and locallymade goods to the farmer, who had to sell iu the world market and who could not pass on the increased cost of producing his commodities. The Arbitration Court, with its policy of raising wages—lie was not saying that wages should not be as high as possible —had set tlie pace iu wage rates which added to the costs of the farming community, who had found it impossible to face the higher costs owing to the decline in prices brought about by world deflation initiated iu 1929 and since continued. The prices the farmer received had fallen by 25 per cent, compared with the index figure for 1914, while on the other hand his costs had risen by 50 per cent, by the same comparison. The Bill had been described as out-and-out socialism. What was the alternative? The alternative. was the legislation brought down by the late Government. Every farmer knew well what that meant. Mr. .Sexton was emphatic that provision should be made in the Bill for full information to be given to Parliament about the way in which the marketing department would arrive at the price to be fixed for the exported' produce. It appeared that under provisions of the Bill no dairy produce could be exported without the consent of the new department. But there was no actual provision in tlie Bill to compel the department to buy all the export output of the Dominion. There seemed to be something of a hiatus there and Mr. Sexton thought that the Minister should add some clause to the Bill indicating the quantity of produce the Government would undertake to buy. “Key To Most Problems.” “The stabilised guaranteed price is the key to most of the problems that have accumulated in the primary producing industries,” said Mr. B. Roberts (Government, Wairarapu). The Opposition criticism of the Bill, he said, indicated a static mind that apparently came from political old age and infirmity. , The Bill took second place only to

the Reserve. Bank Amendment Act, and It was upon those two measures that the election was fought and won. The election figures gave an overwhelming mandate to the Government to save the farmers from bankruptcy, misery and debt. A (ew years ago talk of a guaranteed price was laughed at and treated as a joke, but to-day it was the. most practical issue before the country. Tlie alternative to a guaranteed price was more borrowing and more evictions. If any section of New Zealand could be thankful for the change of Government it was the dairy-farmers, and he was satisfied that as the years went by they would realise it was the best day’s work they ever ‘did when they voted for the Labour Party. If there was to be any repudiation of debts they were travelling that road before the election, but that would not be so now.

Tlie debate was interrupted by the adjournment.