PRICE FOR MEAT AND WOOL

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 244, 13 July 1939, Page 11

PRICE FOR MEAT AND WOOL

Farmers Reject State Guarantee DECISION AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE The annual conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in Wellington yesterday decided that it did not favour a guaranteed price for meat and wool as a cure for the position in which farmers found themselves today. There were only a few dissentients. An amendment that the conference did not favour a guaranteed price as at present operated for dairy produce under the formula contained in the Primary Products Marketing Act was lost. Mr. J. Soler (Auckland) said that the motion asked the small sheepfarmer to close the door to any suggestion of a guaranteed price. The Prime Minister had been criticized for not stating what price the Government was prepared to give, but what had the union done other than to suggest freeing the exchange. His district would fight to the last ditch rather than give control to the State, but were they wise to turn down the guaranteed price? Mr. A. B. Moore (North Auckland)said that in considering whether they should turn down a guaranteed price the reaction df public opinion should be taken into account. The public was not informed on the technical aspects of sheepfarniing and would want to know the reasons for the refusal. The amendment was preferable to the motion, said Mr. I-I. O. Mellsop (Auckland). A number of small farmers favoured a guaranteed price, provided it was on a basis of minimum price, about covering the cost of production. At the biggest meeting of farmers within memory at Wanganui only 24 of 4GO present favoured the guaranteed price, said Mr. T. Currie (Wanganui). Union and non-union members alike attended. He had averaged his wool prices over 10 years at 9.06 d. a pound. At the January sale this year it brought 9.6 d. Therefore on a guaranteed price of average value for 10 years the farmer would be down. Mr. D. H. Cockbum (Southland) said that support of the amendment would be tantamount to saying that the farmers were prepared to consider a guaranteed price on some other basis. President's View. The president, Sir. W. W. Mulholland, said that the Government had been given the opportunity to state its policy on the matter; he had personally made this request to Mr. Savage. Branches had written to Mr. Savage and received indefinite replies. There had been a tendency to discuss the question as though a guaranteed price meant an increase in price. A further tendency had been to assume that a guaranteed price would be essentially higher than the market value. There was no ground for this assumption. The formula under the Primary Produce Marketing Act applied only to dairy produce. The Minister of Marketing, Mr. Nash, had stated that the Marketing Account was the first consideration in fixing the guaranteed price for dairy produce. This meant that there could be little departure from realizations. There had been no indication in any Government statement that the sheepfarmers’ returns would be increased above market level. Could this be done? So far ’as a guaranteed price was concerned it simply could not be. If they were going to get a guaranteed price from any other source it had to come from the taxpayers; this meant rising costa. They should pass the motion as it was, rather than temper it on the lines of the amendment. Back-Country Land. Having regard to the Government’s policy of economic self-sufficiency the guaranteed price would be an excuse for it to throw a lot of back-country land out of production, said Mr. R. O. Montgomerie (Wanganui). There would be a tendency for the Government to base costs of production on those of the better-class land. This would put a back-country man in a bad position and throw millions of acres out of production. If there were a guaranteed price for wool and meat, who was going to guarantee it, said Mr. J. J. Maher (Upper Hutt). Only the primary producers could guarantee anything in this country. The dairy industry was already on the guaranteed price. Another such price would mean the employment of a fresh army of civil

servants—another growth of barnacles on primary production. If meat and wool were handed over to the Government, they would be asking for full socialization of‘primary production. Mr. A. C. Cameron (Otago) said that the farmers did not want the guaranteed price for meat and wool; some other way out of their difficulties must be found. Another delegate said that a section of small farmers believed that the union did not favour the guaranteed price because of the large sheepfarmers. This was not so but, if the amendment was defeated it would give these small farmers an excuse for adhering to their opinion. Other Remits. This Auckland remit way lost on the casting vote of the president:— “That pending the adoption of the measures set out above and as a measure of immediate relief, this conference considers that the most equitable arffi satisfactory method of assisting thd sheep industry is by a flat rate subsidy per lb. of wool sold by wool producers in New Zealand.” This remit by South Canterbury was carried: —“That the Government be asked to institute immediately a system of stay order for farmers in financial difficulties pending the decision of the Government following the Royal Commission’s report”