BUTTER-FAT PRICE

Evening Star, Issue 25172, 11 May 1944, Page 6

BUTTER-FAT PRICE

GOVERNMENT'S LIMIT CRITICISED DAIRY BOARD NOT TO BLAME (P.A.) OHRIjSTCHXJEjOH ? May 10. The decision of the Government to make an increase in the guaranteed price of 1.21 d per lb butter-fat was the main topic at the Dairy Board ward conference in Cbristchurcn to-day, as it has been at ward conferences in other parts of New Zealand. There was, however, less criticism of the board than at therecent conferences in North Island centres. One of the delegates expressed wihat appeared to be the view of the majority when he said: "The board has done all it could do and should not be blamed. It is not the board's fault if the Government has not fallen in with its wishes." A motion asking the chairman of the board, Mr W. E. Hale, to approach the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Sullivan, with a request that he should send a cablegram to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, asking him to use every endeavour to obtain from Britain an increase in the price of dairy produce, was superseded by an amendment supporting the action of the hoard in asking for an increase of 1.99 d when negotiating with the New Zealand Government earlier in the year. An indication that the last may not have been heard on the price question was given by the ward member, Mr J. Dunlop, who told a questioner that he could not say that the price was final. The board would inform the Government that wherever it went the question of price,, had been raised. It was only fair to the Government and all concerned to do that. The conference also carried a resolution asking that the calf-rearing subsidy should apply to at calves. The mover, Mr G. H. Christie, said that more than half the dairy production of Canterbury came from small herds, which wouldl not benefit if the subsidy applied only to calves in excess of five. THE BOARD DEFENDED. A complaint that the dairy farmers had not known enough about what -was going on when the Government was negotiating with the Dairy Industry Council about the increased price for butter-fat was made at the conference, and drew a spirited reply from the chairman of the board, Mr W. E. Hale. Mr Hale said that he had heard a lot in various parts of New Zealand about a " hush hush " policy. That was not the policy of the board. If the farmers wanted! to put the blame anywhere, they should put it on the Government. It made him sore when this criticism was thrown up at conference after conference. It was not fair criticism. Personally, said Mr Hale, he thought that the people of New Zealand should be told more, but he was not one of the leaders of the Government. If he were, it was possible that he might not tell a great deal more than they did. "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT." " It has been made clear during the present season that the remuneration

which the dairy farmer receives falls far short of what is necessary under present conditions," states the annual report of the South Island Dairy Association. " The drift away from dairying to other branches of farming has continued, and if it is to be arrested a more realistic attitude towards the problem will have to be taken by the Government.

" The small additional payment of 1.21 d per lb butter-fat for next season will not meet the situation. This allowance has been granted mainly to provide an increased wage for the farm worker and little or no benefit will accrue to the farmer who has to employ labour.

" It is understood that the committee which dealt with the matter during the recent negotiations with the Government unanimously

agreed that to prevent,,a further decline in the number of dairy farmers and to secure efficient labour for the farms the guaranteed price must be increased by 1.99 d per lb butter-fat. This advice was not accepted, however, and the committee was told in effect: ' We will raise the. price by 1.21 d and no more. Take it or

leave it.' I '* Tt is interesting to note that for, the past three years the Marketing Department has shown a surplus from the sale of dairy produce to the United Kingdom, amounting to £1,634,965. The producers have received that amount less than the sale of their products realised.