The Dominion MONDAY, JULY 20, 1942. MISLEADING COMPARISONS

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 250, 20 July 1942, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, JULY 20, 1942. MISLEADING COMPARISONS

It may be sound politics to allow no time to elapse between criticism and reply, and the Minister of Marketing has been quick to comment on the discussion and findings of the New Zealand Farmers Union Conference. But if that promptness should tend to confuse the matters at issue, and the statements macle in rebuttal are themselves open to question, the exchange of views may not be of anv practical assistance in reaching a solution of very real problems. Mr. Barclay, dealing with the higlief price to be paid for wool, has, for some reason, revived the issue of a danger of inflation, and in order to support a very weak case has resorted to what he regards as relative contrasts. He has compared the worker, earning .from £250 to £3OO annually, who obtained an increase in pay of £l3 per ann.uni. with a small farmer with 1000 sheep, who, he alleges, would receive an additional £75 if the 15 per cent, increase promised bv the British Government, were paid in full. Apart from other considerations, is this comparison really a fair one? It assumes that the sheep-owner receives 10/- per head for wool. With the average weight of a fleece, say, between 81b. and 91b. the appraisal would have to be well above the average of 12|d. to give that return. It is only two years since some of the leading wool districts reported that the average weight of wool per sheep was from 11b. to 21b. below normal. The clip, unfortunately, is not stable in that respect, nor in condition and other important matters affecting value To base an argument on an assumed case of a flock that could return as high as 10/- per head for wool is certainly open to serious objection.. The proposed deduction, which the Minister would like to make in the promised increase, would affect many sheep-farmers whose returns fall far below that level.’ There are back-country sheepruns where the return for the clip, averaged over the -past two seasons, has not been 10|d. per lb. The 12|d. mentioned was not a minimum, but an overall average, and the Minister’s proposal would hit the men whose returns have fallen below the mean—and who need the payment most —harder than it would those who have reached or exceeded it. In other respects also the comparison attempted*!)/ the Minister of Marketing was misleading. The employee who received a rise of £l3 had his purchasing power increased by that amount. Jt cannot be said that the man running 1000 sheep would have £75 for the same purpose. Out of that sum would have to come increased wages, among other things, and the higher costs of production generally. _ He is exposed to losses which the other party does not need to consider. A lew weeks ago. owing to a heavy snowfall, a sheep-farmer in North Canterbury lost between 700 and 'BOO sheep. Losses generally have been fairly heavy this winter, and they enter into the farmers’ accounts even if they find no place in the Minister’s selected comparisons. For that comparison to carry any weight it must first be proved that the fleece will be over 9-Ad. lb. on the average and even then be applicable only in such cases where the overall price is 12|d. As he must know that very many farmers, especially in the hack country, seldom if ever reach that average in weight and have not enjoyed anything like 12jd. in price since this system was established, the comparison can serve no useful purpose and may tend only to mislead.