Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1940. SECTIONAL POLICIES

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 107, 1 November 1940, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1940. SECTIONAL POLICIES

The dairy industry's resolution expressing complete lack of confidence in Mr. Nash has its origin in the failure of the Government to apply the principles laid down in the Marketing Act for fixing the guaranteed price, and its failure to j apply to all other sections of the community the stabilisation policy which it has forced upon the dairy industry. In the Marketing Act it is laid down that the guaranteed price shall be determined by certain factors, including costs in the industry, the living standard of the farmer in relation to other workers, and the returns obtained from the sale of the produce. Working upon this formula, an expert committee in 1938 recommended certain prices, but Mr. Nash claimed that the standards of the committee were incorrect and the Government fixed the price for that season at a lower figure. Nevertheless, the payments made from the Dairy Industry Account for produce were some £2,000,000 in excess of the realisations overseas. In 1939 the first war contract was made with the British Government at prices which were slightly higher than the average returns for the previous season. It was anticipated that these prices would permit payment of the previous season's guaranteed price without increasing the deficit in the Dairy Industry Account. The farmers did not accept the 1938 guaranteed price as just, but they waived their claim to a higher price as a war gesture, and asked only that any additions to costs should be met. This year, with costs rising, they pressed the claim for an addition to meet costs and were met by the Minister of Marketing with a request for a stabilised price. The Minister said that the same request would be made to those who were claiming increases of wages. The request was made; but the dairy farmer is now resentful because the request to him had the force of a decision; to other sections of the community it was a request only, and was largely disregarded. Wages have been raised by general order of the Arbitration Court, by decision of the Government with respect to public works employees, waterside workers (under the Government's control commission), and the Public Service generally. The farmer is smarting under a sense of injustice because he feels, and with good reason, that the policy which the Minister of Marketing has applied to him is not applied by other Ministers and the Government as a whole to other workers.

The principles laid down in the Marketing Act have not been applied. We have never believed that they could be—war or no war. When the season before the war resulted in a deficit of over £2,000,000, even though the recommendations of the Government's own expert committee were not accepted, it became glaring' ly clear that the plan of an insulated economy within which the farmer would receive his full due was impossible. To follow it was to speed on the downward track of inflation. The Government must have recognised this too. The plea for stabilisation is evidence that it did so. But there was no frank acknowledgment of the mistaken policy and of the impossibility of maintaining . the guaranteed price and the insulation plan. The farmers had to accept stabilisation with their costs added to, with such help as was afforded' by fertiliser subsidies and the promise of consideration for higher factory costs. But the big groups of organised union workers, who also were receiving indirect benefits through the Social Security Act and in other ways, claimed and received a direct addition to wages to meet higher living costs. We agree entirely with the Minis-

ter of Marketing and the farmers that Britain should not be asked to pay a higher price during the war and while she is bearing such tremendous burdens. She is treating New Zealand generously in taking all the produce at a fixed price and bearing all the expense and risk of transportation. But the cost of this justifiable consideration for Britain should not fall upon the shoulders of the farmers. It should be spread over the whole community by real stabilisation and equal sacrifice. We emphasised this when wages were raised, and the original plea for stability was made. If award workers have a cost-of-living bonus and increases are granted to big groups, it is wholly unfair to | ask the farmer to accept the old price, the bulk of the added costs in his industry, the additions to his own cost of living, and then the additions resulting from the higher wages granted to the workers whose pay has not been stabilised. The Government should have faced the costs problem fairly and squarely when it was seen that it could not follow the guaranteed price formula. As it is, it has applied one policy to the award workers and another to the farmers. We do not wonder that the farmers, whose generous waiving of claims last year could have been the foundation for a true stability policy, are now pressing for the justice to which they are entitled.