FOOD CONFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 39, Issue 28, 27 October 1945, Page 8

FOOD CONFERENCE

Absence Of Farmers’ Representative OPPOSITION CRITICISM New Zealand was the only country which had not seen fit to send a farmer to represent it at the conference on food and: agriculture at Quebec; instead it had appointed its High Commissioner, Mr. Wilson, a former eminent trade unionist and party secretary who might have a profound knowledge of agricultural production but who had been very successful in concealing it from the people, particularly the farmers, said Mr. POLSON (N. Stratford), during the debate on the Imprest' Supply Bill. In the course of his reply Mr. ROBERTS, Minister of Agriculture, stressed the importance of guaranteed prices and orderly marketing which had been introduced by this Government and were now being copied in other parts of the world. Mr POLSON said that Mr. IV ilson s statements to the conference on the economy of Ne.w Zealand had indicated a somewhat puckish sense of humour when in effect he declared that the world must adjust itself to New Zealand' conditions —a case of the tail wagging the dog. His suggestion that New Zealand required prices for her produce in line with costs and the Dominion’s internal economy was fantastic. When it was realized Just how conditions which obtained in New Zealand as a result of Socialist .theories compared with those obtaining in other primary producing countries, we could realize why no farmer was allowed to attend the conference as a member ot the New Zealand delegation. No farmer could have assented to the theories Air. Wilson had advanced. Now that the oracle in Quebec has spoken. New Zealand farmers were indignant that such preposterous ideas as were expounded here should be taken overseas and paraded before intelligent people in other countries. It -was time someone practical instead of theorists of Socialist Labourites was placed in charge of departments which controlled primary producers. When the rest of the world returned to normal the extremely high prices which had ruled during the war would probably fall. If that happened our only means of meeting our obligations—and lie agreed that most of what the Government had undertaken was in the interests of a happy people—-was to build up our export production to counter falling prices. He could see dangers ahead unjess encouragement were given to primary industries, and that encouragement had not been apparent even during the war. If the opportunities were‘seized our production could be doubled, trebled or even quadrupled. Comparative Prices. He compared Air. Wilson’s statements in Quebec with a report given by Mr. Ross, who had been a Canadian member of the farmers’ delegation which had visited this country last year. Aiming comparisons given were that the New Zealand price for butterfat was 28 cents compared with 37 cents in Canada. In tins country the cost of a separator was represented by 3371 b. of butterfat as against 1311 b. in Canada. The price for lamb was 4.16 dollars as against 0.40 dollars. It took 191 lambs in this country to pay for a set of harrows compared with <1 in Canada. The prices for cheese were 12.3 cents and 24 cents, and it took IbOb lb. of cheese to pay for a mower ni New Zealand against 5121 b. in Canada. Statements such as those made by Mr. M ilson made a laughing-stock of this country when agricultural conditions were compared. Canada knew differently as a result of the inquiries Mr. Ross made. Mr. FRASER: Yet the farmers turned him out. at the last election. Mr. POLSON said that many a good man had been rejected at the polls. It was t ; , ■ the Government awakened trom its midsummer night's dream and realized that the economy of this country was in Jeopardy unless every step was taken to increase production of foodstuffs. Advantage was not being taken of those opportunities. but all sorts of other types of production were being exploited. Objects of Conference. Mr ROBERTS, said the conference wa’s not one dealing with prices for farmin- produce, but for organizing and layin- the basis for world agriculture and the expanding of marketing and production plans, thus fulfilling the vision ot Mr Roosevelt and Air. Churchill as outlined in the Atlantic Charter. lais country was represented at the conference bv the Director-General of Agriculture Mr. Fawcett, and the deputy-direc-tor of the Export Marketing iLvis-ion. Mr. Pottinger. It was considered that Mr Wilson would be quite a competent person to lead the delegation. Furthermore. a big delegation of tanners was to go to Britain early next year. lout would lie another very necessary _ preliminary before the ultimate decisions r<—ardin- world agriculture were mace. The remarks of the member for Stratfnrd concerning Mi*. Wilsons “puckish humour" had been made in very ban taste. It was not necessary to milk cows to know somethin- about agriculture. An Opposition voice: Planning is no good without production. Mr. ROBERTS: You Jo not need io take production with you. but understanding. He added that it was not. a question of the prices Canada was able to charge Britain and thus pay off her national debt, but the building of stable world agriculture to enable farmers to avoid slumps. Before this Government (which according to the Opposition knew nothing about agriculture) came into power farmers were allowed to go through a most difficult period with bankruptcies and frustration. Referring to the remarks of Mr. l«:»s quoted bv the member foi St rut lord. he said that prices for machinery wore oe; side the question. Stabilization ban been of immense benefit to the farmers, enabling them to be on a basis in regard to prices and costs tliat was envied in other countries. The farmers of this countrv had never been mure

prosperous. Banks and stock and station agents knew that. Their position was being undermined because farmers were able to pay off mortgages and debts. All this had come about under a Government that allegedly knew nothing about farming. If the Opposition had the manipulation of farmers’ affairs that would be all very well for the farmers who milked the sharemilkers. Mr. POLSON: We have no absentee owners on our benches. They are ou the Government benches, Mr. ROBERTS said that production had increased during the war years, and he took off his hat to the farmers as Air. Webb bad done to the miners. It was necessary to look at the picture as a whole. The time had gone when any section could say it ran New Zealand. An Opposition voice: That is what we are trying to tell you. Problems of Future. Mr. ROBERTS added that no one knew what the future would bring iu economic difficulties. No one eould predict what would be the result of the Bri-tish-American talks. New Zealand had to see that its economy with Britain was maintained on a basis of providing her with food. High prices were not the only way. Costs should be kept at as reasonable a level as possible. No one could know what would be the repercussions from the competition of margarine and Danish butter and as a result of the restoration of the agriculture of European countries, ■ Assistance had been given in this country to primary production councils. Air. SMITH (N„ Bay of Islands) : Why did you abolish tlfem? Air. ROBERTS said the Farmers’ Union had asked for them to be wouud up. Air. POLSON: Did you receive a letter from the National Farmers’ Union? Air. ROBERTS said he had, but there were so many such organizations that it was hard to know which was, which. The Government had spent £30,000 on the organization of the councils. The controls had all been on the one side. The men had been controlled in the dairy factories, in the freezing works and ou the farms, but the industry had never been declared essential because the farmers wanted to be able to dispense with workers. Air. SMITH: The Alinister knows that ie not correct. Air J ROBERTS: It is correct. Air. SIM (N., Rotorua) : What rot. Alr.l ROBERTS said that the housing position on the farms was not appropriate for an -ssential industry. Mr. SMITH : That is it. Mr. ROBERTS eaid that housing was one of the factors. They must enlarge their vision, not for sentimental reasons; though that was all to their credit, nor for reasons of Christianity. If they wanted farmers to increase production it could not be achieved by thwarting them by depressions. The guaranteed price was the very ground work. The leaders of the dairy industry did not want any interference with the basis of the guaranteed price, which was their auchor. Members of the Opposition were out of touch with the rank and file of the farmers on this issue. Some people held the view that all that was needed for world marketing planning was free trade, but it had been stated by Lord De La Warr. Undersecretary to the British Ministry of Agriculture. that that would only bring disaster. It was not a question of competition and free trade, hut of orderly marketing and of the establishing of farmers on a stable financial basis. The first place to start was here, as this Government had already done. It was necessary to see that price levels did not go too high or the structure would be undermined when- other countries came info the world’s marketing arrangements. Our price level had to be on some comparative basis with Britain, which was this country’s best market. In that connexion they must have regard for possible circumstances. Our difficulties were not as great at present as they might be in a few years. Mr. SUTHERLAND (N„ Hauraki) : Hear, hear. Air. Roberts said he was referring to world problems as well as our own. The methods along which this country was proceeding were being copied elsewhere. The farmers’ delegation which would visit Britain would be reminded that guaranteed prices and orderly marketing was the programme endorsed by British farmers. Issue Sidetracked. Air. HOLYOAKE (N.. Pahiatua) said the charge raised by the member for Stratford that the Government bad ignored farmers at the Quebec conference was a just one, but the Alinister had sidetracked in his answer and had swim; back on Io provocative issues and the. raising of points of which the public was sick and tired. The Minister of Agriculture was presumably appointed to Cabinet as the farmers’ friend, and ought to be fighting their battles. Instead, every timelie rose in the House he. had a crack at the primary production councils or thr Farmers' Union. Air. THORN : The farmers have never had better friends. Mr. HOLYOAKE: Then you get up and explain Ibis omission to them. Air. HOLYOAKE continued that it was only by the encouragement and inspiration of farmers that the maximum primary production contribution to the present world situation could be achieved, instead Hie Government deliberately and designedly set out to antagonize the farmers.

.Mr. THOKN said the Opposition members spoke as if the Government had deliberately set about annoying and embarrassing the farmers and to bring them to ruin. A telegram received by the Minister of Industries and Commerce from Mr. 11. F. Nicoll, chairman of the United Wheatgrowers’ Organization in Canterbury, conveyed a resolution of the organization’s electoral committee. This complimented the Minister on his knowledge and sympathetic understnnding of the wlieatgrowers’ problems and thanked him for his assistance in all matters pertaining Io the industry. That telegram was significant of liie attitude of the Government to tile farm r and of the reasonable farmer to the Government. The conditions of the farmers bad been transformed in the past 16 years nnd individual farmers said so despite resolutions of meetings. From 1924 to 1931 butter produclion rose from 63.060 to J 30,000 tons but despite that the far-

mers’ income in J 934 was £1,600,000 less than in 1923. That was the result of Rafferty's rules for which the Opposition had fought and wished to revert to in the interest of banks, merchants and Tooley Street. In .1943-41, £15,815,000 was raised in mortages and £19,945,000 discharged; in 1944-45, £19,602,000 raised and £21,768.000 discharged; in four mouths of 1945-46. £6,831.000 raised and £7,632,000 discharged. This showed the position of the farmers—they were paying off their mortages, not raising them, What impertinence and insolence it was for the Opposition to talk about selecting farmers to represent farmers when it had eight or nine lawyers representing rural electorates —the men who represented those who farmed the farmers.

Mr. GOOSMAN (N., Waikato) said it was no credit to the Government that the farmers had been paying off their mortgages. It was because they had worked so hard and. but for the heavy taxation, they would have been able to pay off more. They were taking advantage of world prosperity. If they did not payoff their mortages now, when would ■ they? They had the money because Britain was able to pay the prices and it was because she could not in 1934, that the position referred to by the Member for-Thames arose. Wool Organization. Air. CULLEN (L.. Hawke’s Bay), who referred to the proposed joint wool organization, said there would be a subsidiary body in New Zealand consisting of three Government nominees and three nominees of the producers, with a Government nominee as chairman. The subsidiary organization, with the approval of the main London organization, would lie able to purchase from the pool at an approved figure. Some of the liberated countries would not be able to take iis much wool as they would like to in the next few years. The subsidiary organization, with the approval of the London organization, would be able to increase the price of wool in this country by setting H reserve. Ho hoped the reserve would be a paying proposition to the wool growers of New Zealand. The poorer classes of wool would lie passed over in the initial stages of this organization. At its recent'appraisal in Christchurch 3750 bales were valued at £52.390. That was an average price per bale of £l3 19/5 or just lOjd. a pound. In his opinion that was not very good. He thought we would be faced with very serious competition from other countries. It was the duty of the Government to assist wool growers with regard to the development of the class of wool required by the overseas buyers. He looked forward to the importation of the class of sheep required for improving the quality of wool. .Mr. .SUTHERLAND (N„ Hauraki) said he hoped the Alinister of Rehabilitation would got a fair share of materials and manpower to erect houses, shearing and milking sheds and other farm buildings on land which returned men were waiting to take up. The main reason why farmers were paying off mortgages was that the Government was buying large areas of land for cash. Exploitation Issue. The Tooley Street exploitation of which the member for' Thames complained was the lesser of two evils. The other was the Alinister of Marketing, under whose administration the farmers had been deprived of £35,000,000. When the Minister talked of the Government helping the farmers through the primary production councils he was putting the cart before the horse. In contrast to the representation at Ottawa, the International Labour Conference saw the Alinister of Labour arriving with a delegation so large that it was embarrassing. The Minister of Agriculture should have been sent to Ottawa. It would have broadened his vision to meet farmers who had increased their pork production 400 per cent, during the war while New Zealand’s pig population had dropped by 250,000. The member for Hawke’s Bay and the Minister should come to his electorate and explain the wool situation and the country quota to the farmers. He would guarantee them good meetings. Minister’s Reply.

Air. NASH, Alinister of Finance, in reply, said he proposed, without being derogatory, to make comparisons between the positions of the Canadian and New Zealand farmers. ’ The most important thing to the farmer was the net return. Canadian costs of production had increased by 37 per cent, during the war and New Zealand’s by 25 per cent.

Opposition members: 'Where did you get that from? . w Mr. NASH: I will find the source for you. He referred to butterfat production, saying that the New Zealand dairyfarmer was twice as efficient as his Canadian counterpart. What was the use of comparing prices when one produced twice as much as the other? The New Zealand producers on the laud and in the factories produced two pounds of butter for the same labour and cost as the Canadians produced one pound. Quebec was the major butterfat province in Canada, producing 23 per cent, of the total. In Quebec, 16 per cent, of farmers had motor-cars; in New Zealand, 78 per cent. Mr. POLSON: A great number are only small farmers; some holdings are only a chain wide. Mr. NASH continued that Mr. Ross had failed to mislead the people of his electorate. They had thrown him out. There was nothing worse thau a man who who came to a country as a guest and then went home and damned it. He thought there was something in the points raised regarding farmer representation at Ottawa, but if there were any fault, it was his. The papers he had before him at the time suggested that the conference was to be purely official. and the High Commissioner in Canada, Mr. Wilson, the DirectorGeneral of Agriculture, and the DeputyDirector of Marketing had been appointed to represent New Zealand. lie thought now that a producer could have helped, but. if anyone was to blame, it was he. He was satisfied there was great advantage in sending primary producer representatives to conference not only for the contribution they would make, but through the benefits which came on their return.