WOOL MARKET.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12397, 9 November 1934, Page 2

WOOL MARKET.

THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS OF THE DAIRYING COMMISSION.

, ■... (Toi thu Editor.) , . ■ girj—lt- is noteworthy,, .jtlxaty de-. spite, figures spnfe to ey.ei;y member of Parliament which- showed. : .. clearly that not assistance, but stark ruin .to dairying would result from tbe putting into operation of the Dairy Commission’s report, Parliament does not. seem to have seen where the Emergency Bill is leading. Apparently the real intentions in that report and what its real effects would bo on farming are mot apprehended. The following statement aiid figures are put forth in the hope that they will excite the attention they should. The statement that relief to the industry by the State is contemplated in the Commission’s report is challenged by these figures. In paragraph 180 is a summary of capital expenditure. This is by the State. It reads, with amounts recoverable in parentheses: Factories, £500,000 (£500',000); farms, £1,500,000 (£1,300,000) ; research, £25,000 (nil) ; ■ T.B. . eradication, £1,000,000 (nil)— £3,025,000 (£1,800,000). There as nothing in the above, which will produce one penny more for the farmer. There will ho a temporary boom in the carpentering-,.'tin-smithing and engineering trades, but tbe farmer will necessarily be put to greater, expense. The suggestion is mdde that the money advanced be made a first "charge; against the farms, where the farmers and factories .cannot pay from their own resources. This would, of course, reduce the ordinary interest-paying ability of farmers still more.

The commission does not even profess to show that improvement -in quality will mean an improvement in price of butter-fat. It can be questioned whether any adequate increase in price would result and it was at least the commission’s task to show that financial rewards would flew from its recommendations. There are 163 butter and 317 cheese factories turning out excellent produce, and it is proposed that 20 butter factories and 23 cheese factories should be completely rebuilt while 72 butter factories' and 82 cheese factories were to be “renovated.” Many of the factories have been built or “renovated” within quite recent periods, none is really “old” in the sense that word would have in other ..countries, for the industry itself is not old. Applying the. same rule to freezing works probably nearly every works would require re-building. At least, however, it has to be admitted, that the cost against the industry is riot the “repayments,” but repayments plus interest, which will most likely double the amounts. Also compensation for destroyed cows will not be the value of the cows and is Usually much less than half the value. The recommendations put compensation at less than. £4 per boast, so it is likely, that a.t least £3 jnu beast will be the capital loss to farming in the first onslaught. How much would follow* could hot! be estimated. The cost to the'industry under these headings then may be given as: Factories, £1,000,000 principal and interest; farms, £2,600,000 do.; T:B., £540,000 loss to farmers; total, £4.140,000. This can hardly bo claimed as relief to farming, unless it can be shown beyond doubt that improved quality will result to a commensurate amount and that the improved quality will he paid for. At present quality improvements quite clearly are not productive of any increased 1 financial return. Any monetary return is problematic. In paragraph 181 under “Recurring -Expenditure” arc costs of a current. nature totalling £306,700 of which it is estimated £288,700 will be against the industry ' diVoetly. Thai alone is a serious charge. As the continuation of the T.B. campaign is to cost £150,000 ’per annum o.f tills, there will be losses beyond what appear above, under this head to farmers, both in capital value of stock and in reduced production. The following additions to the annual charges against dairying are very hasty approximates only, but they can be claimed to be far more correct than the commission’s figures, for the 1 will clearly bo charges under each of these heads and the commission has omitted them altogether: As per report, £288,700; annual interest, repayments and penalties on extra capitalisation of farms, £75,000; value of one-tenth lost production of but-ter-fat, say, £1,500,000; increased cost through uneconomic direction of overseas vessels' (present freights about £1,700,000), say, £600,000; extra cost of extra, small boards, etc., say £10,000; extra cost in factories through various recommendations, £50,000; loss under 2d per lb grading penalty, in killed production, £2o',000’; cost of extra daily deliveries, £20,000; license fees, £19,000; increased cost of Dairy Board, £750,000; total, £3,365,700. It may he saicl that some of the above figures are, guesses, or even wild guesses, and" the reply is that they are no more or less guesses than those of the commission with regard to T.B. eradication and cost of ‘ ‘improving’ ’ • farms, concerning both of-which only the. scantiest . framework, of actual , knowledge is .available. It is, for instance, .being fr.cely said ,liy Government instructors, that “60 per cent.'of the cows are diseased.” Also that there is iio arrangement to destroy “T. 8.” pigs; although tho suggestion is made that the pigs get T.B. from cows, tho reverse is" equally possible. Indeed' cows may got T.B. from Iranian' coh--taininaTio.il'; • There- are vast,, poss.ib.U- ■ itios.' of l -expenses notallowed for in the operations qf'.;;dairyihg' inspectors with compul'srfl'y -'.powers. Already largo ;expenses ; .-fjpV;-5-A6w cans hay.Q'; ; been placed dif men quite unable:'‘to .-paly ? tjho'ttfc, ;y , " . v. if'tho figures of -.such .of- the -cqinmnittefi’s ,are .much .-.less . than those given,., the praclicayiiidiis'iry^s' whicKy.' oh Hie; commission ;s (own: flawing, cannot pay o per cent, ■on tlib capital of'''omkhalf .the properties u ''Concbliie(:b'-- : ib iVnllv;'-4noso- ! recommendations! simply could not |-IV© put into effect, nor indeed even

without such extra, charges, could tho commission’s other recommendation's bo other than completely disastrous. Where then is the use of passing legislation to set up expensive hoards and a Supremo Council to attempt, the .impossible? And where is the justice of claiming tho right of Government, control under the recommendations of a report committing the Government to an initial and recurring . expenditure of millions, for injurious rather than helpful purposes, when that industij cannot carry its present costs? Ivven more is the neodlessness of the legislation emphasised by discussion in Parliament. The Prime Minister and others said that the Governmentcould not ask taxpayers to pay a subsidy but it is suggested that taxpayers pay over £3,000,000 for no immediately useful purpose. Otliei members said production must be lessened but the report calls for most radical action to reduce production and mourns over the necessary loss to Stato Advances and other Government lending departments through that course having to be taken.

“Strong criticism of almost everything of moment in the report has already como from those who aie supporting it. If “90 per cent, of farms and factories are in good order and condition and the efficiency of management of farms had improved year by year’’ as stated by Mr. Murdoch the main contentious of the ieport as to quality are quite without value. If the Council of Agriculture is not to “be a sort of Mussolini,' there is no need for all sorts of autocratic powers to be bestowed on it. The statement of the Prime Minister that “under the Mortgagors' Rebel Act there was no chance of a tanner being put off his farm” and other references as to that Act, imply that it is intended to retain it., whereas tbe Commission's financial recommendations are based on its repeal, and would be of little use without repeal. It is sincerely to bo hoped that by tho time the Act becomes law it will be amended, so as to place the dairying industry in charge of its own a - fairs and prevent any such ruinous proposal as those put forward by the commission having a chance of being given effect to. At least- tins is the practically universal wish of all farmers’ meetings which my union lias been able to reach so far. T am, yours, etc.. (Bv Order) A. E. ROBINSON, Provincial Secretary. N.Z. Auckland Farmers’ Union, Auckland, November, 2.