FARMERS WANT FULL RETURN FROM PRODUCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 June 1948, Page 2

FARMERS WANT FULL RETURN FROM PRODUCE

[SPECIAL REPORTER] WESTPORT. This Day. A demand that farmers should be iallowed to market their own produce and receive the price it returns was made at the annual conference of the West Coast Federated Farmers held at Westport yesterday. This followed the submission of a remit by the Rotomanu branch, proposing that the organisation ask the dairy farmers of New Zealand to demand that the Dairy Control Board market all butter on behalf of New Zealand producers. “We have to make an effort to get out of the grasp of the Government,” declared Mr W. T. Jacobs, proposing the adoption of the remit, which, he said, might start something. “The noose is slowly tightening and the longer we leave it the harder it will be to get out of its grasp. I would like to see the Dairy Control Board market our butter overseas and in Nev/ Zealand and pay the farmer what he got out of it. The farmer now has to be content with a payment of whatever the Government sees fit to give him,” he added. “You may rest assured that the Dominion organisation is moving in that direction (the controlling by the farmer of his finance),” said Mr Scott-Davidson, a member of the Dominion Council, who attended the conference. He explained that the Dairy Control Commission had taken over the marketing of produce in New Zealand on May 1, and its chairman, Mr W. H. Marshall, had left for England for discussions. “What the final outcome of this arrangement will be I don’t know,” he added, “but we are watching it very closely.” Opposition Voiced Mr R. Jennings stated that the Karamea branch did not support the remit, while Mr C. Jamieson (Koiterangi) said that he -also was not happy about it, because only recently the Dairy Control Commission had been set up on the recommendation of farmers. He pointed out that the Government was underwriting prices and as the question of trade entered into it, it was only reasonable that the Government should have some say in what should and should not be done in conformity with trade requirements. “This board was set up and. the

whole funds paid over, and now we want something else. Is it any wonder that people the length and breadth of the country say that the farmer is never satisfied and that he doesn’t know what he wants? There is justification for it,” he concluded. “The farmer sells his own produce and should receive his own price,” said Mr W. Vallance (Rotomanu). “The farmer can arrange a guaranteed price better than Government servants pitchforked into jobs they know nothing about,” he added. Lump Sum Suspected “There is little doubt that there is suspicion in the minds of most farmers'’about these lump sum payments, said Mr P. J. O’Regan (Inangahua). “You cannot deny that when Ministers get together behind closed doors to talk about butter and wheat prices there is not some other thing that also comes into their conversations, he said. “The lump sum payment should be obviated, and can be, by allowing the commission to have the marketing of its products. The farmer, however, is governed by statute and as a result can never be. free fi'crn Government control or interference.” He pointed out that in the marketing and payment for dairy produce the Government had to con ~ sider the economic structure and condition of the country and nad. to move accordingly. Mr O’Regan said that the Government did not underwrite the price for farm goods and nothing bound n to take all the goods produced. He said that the Government system of retaining a small proportion 01 the payment for produce was common sense, but could well be done by the individual. “I don’t think the remit can be objected to, as it simply for an extension of the powers of the commission or that its powers be strengthened.” The remit was adoptea.