SATISFYING THE FARMER

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 57, 4 September 1937, Page 8

SATISFYING THE FARMER

Complaints of the new guaranteed price have been expressed by £aroMtt in the north and in the south; but dairy farmers of South Canterbury, according to one dairy factory chairman, are satisfied that there is nothing to complain about. This will i\pt stop the complaints. The argument will go on as to whether costs of production have been covered, for Mr. F. B. Stephens, a farm economist, states that the almost complete absence of accurate financial records in connection with farming makes it almost impossible to ascertain accurately the real position. It is the more necessary, therefore, that the Government should publish the data and calculations of its expert committee. Otherwise we shall have no evidence for judging how the price fits costs until farmers are either claiming that they cannot meet interest or capitalising an enhanced price in land values. It should not be forgotten, however, that the farmer is not the only person to be considered in the price-fixing. He has a special claim because his produce is taken whether he consents or not. In equity he can demand the full market value, as determined by sales overseas. But has he a right to demand more, and particularly that any additional costs imposed upon him, or the cost of a new living standard, shall be provided for by the guarantee? The Marketing Act promises him this among other things; but has he in equity a stronger claim than has the manufacturer or trader whose costs are also affected? He certainly possesses a claim to equal consideration. That is to say, the Government, in raising living standards or wages should consider how this will affect both the farmer and the manufacturer.

Yet there is a more important point at issue which is apt to be ignored when attention is concentrated on consideration of whether the farmer is satisfied. There are two parties to the guaranteed price contract —the farmer and the people. For last season (on present estimates) the farmer will receive £650,000 more than the actual overseas value of his produce, in addition to the benefit t oi marketing finance-arranged jr. i .the

public credit through the Reserve Bank. This has been said to be worth about £350,000 and it is a special benefit received by no other section of producers.. This season, unless the market advances, the farmer will receive even more at the expense of the public. It is time to ask, not only is the farmer satisfied, but are the public satisfied? The farmer claims as his due all that he receives and more, even to the "compensated price," because he cannot recover increased costs from an overseas market. But Mr. Stephens after cataloguing the Government help bestowed on the farmer in various ways, comes to the conclusion that "far from being in an unprotected position, the farmer derives very considerable benefits from the operations of the Government." Moreover the farmer is not alone in being unable to recover increased costs. Many business, professional, and salaried workers are in a similar position. If the farmer is to have a compensated price, what of compensated income for these others, including the retired investor? But if full justice is to be done and everybody is compensated for all extra costs incurred there will be no improvement for anybody. Higher costs will chase higher income so closely that there will be no gain. It does appear that, if fairly carried out, the Government plan of raising everybody's income will be only a delusion. But is it to be carried out equitably? On what plan are these subsidies of £650,000 to be allotted? Will everyone have a share?