ARE FARMERS PROSPERING?

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 5, 6 July 1939, Page 8

ARE FARMERS PROSPERING?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l was amused to read the contribution to present-day knowledge which was made by W. H. Lewis in your issue of July 3. Mr. Lewis says that the New Zealand farmer is definitely in a prosperous condition, and he would not change his position with any other set of farmers in the world.

At the present time it is general to regard the farmer as satisfied because he has not yet broken the law or taken it into his own hands as some trade unions have. Because so many workers have struck, are striking, or are about to strike, it is generally assumed that the farmer is content with his lot

In ten years the New Zealand dairy farmer doubled his production in the face of falling prices for his produce. His reward from a grateful country consisted of its refusal to pay him the rate of remuneration unanimously recommended by one of the most competent tribunals ever set up in New Zealand. Mr. Lewis quotes from the statement he refers to those facts which suit him. He omitted entirely the reference to the fact that the Taranaki farmer had raised his average production to 3001b of butterfat per cow, as against 2001b per cow observed by Mr. Davies in New South Wales.

I had the good fortune to visit some of the farms in northern New South Wales and Queensland when I was in Australia last year. I found that the average Queensland pay-out was higher than in New Zealand, and that costs were lower. To give two examples: rates, for instance, were only a fraction of what they were in New Zealand, and there was very little topdressing done. The production was, of course, much lower, and it may be argued that the New Zealand dairy farmer is more efficient, but as I stated in a broadcast talk when I returned, it is almost impossible to compare farming in Australia with farming in New Zealand because conditions are so different.

Your correspondent may remember that a-year or two ago Mr. J. Hodgens, M.P., stated that the conditions under which some of the dairy farmers in Taranaki lived were a scandal. In Australia I met many wealthy dairy farmers with whom many dairy farmers I know would be glad to change places. It all depends on one's point of view. The real test of the dairy farmer is how he compares with other sections of the community in New Zealand. Compare the reward of the dairy farmer with that of the watersiders and the slaughtermen who handle the farmers' produce. Compare his reward with that of a cook on a ship or Compare it with the rewards of some of our skilled tradesmen. The dairy farmer cannot yet afford to go to work in a taxi. Also, I have seen no effort made to provide him with extra remuneration for dirty work or work in wet places. ' I know of the difficult times che farmer is experiencing because I hear of the number of men who are being put off their places, amongst whom are I many good farmers. As W. H. Lewis likes comparisons let him compare:— (a) The output of the New Zealand dairy farmer with that of his Australian brother. (b) The output of the New Zealand factory worker with that of the Ausia(c)alThe rate of loading of the watersider in New Zealand with the Australian watersider. When he has done this he might then sit down and study the decrease in dairy production over the last two jyears.-I am, etc:, r