NOT ENOUGH

Grey River Argus, 14 August 1937, Page 2

NOT ENOUGH

GUARANTEED PRICE View of Mr J. H. Furniss COMPENSATED PRICE ADVOCATE “So that I shall not be accused of political bias, I would say -that all my life I have voted Labour, but what I shall do next time depends upon what they do in future,” said Mr J. H. Furniss, of Huntly, Honorary Organiser of the Compensated Price Movement, in addressing a small meeting of members of the West Coast Farmers’ Union yesterday afternoon. Mr Furniss, in the course of an address of over an hour and a-half, criticised the Guaranteed Prices as not giving to the farmer an equitable return for his labour in proportion to the return received by other industries. “Tt is not necessary for me to say to farmers that they are in an economic situation which is becoming increasingly precarious,” said Mr Furniss. The farmer was not receiving the remuneration to which he was entitled, and no one could carry on business on the basis of selling at less than its cost the article which he was producing. The gap between the cost and selling prices of produce must be closed before farmers could become solvent. This gap was the penalty inflicted upon the farmer in order to satisfy the internal conditions of the Dominion as dictated by the politicians. The farmer had, for a period, almost closed the gap by using the unpaid labour of his wife and children and his own for the promise of the payment he hoped to get.

HIGHER COSTS. The way in which present legislation was moving, along with the economic structure, would do nothing to assist the farmer to keep on a sound basis because costs had risen. The Farmers’ Union Committee had fixed the increase in costs owing to the legislation of the past twelve months at the conservative estimate' of 21d per lb. of butterfat, and this tallied very closely with the estimates made by leading dairy companies. The farmer was, in effect, worse off to that extent since the present season had started, and since the opening of the season he had been placed in a more precarious position on account of the legislation of the present and past Governments —legislation supposed to place the dairy farmer in a sound economical position. There was grave danger, as they were now drifting rapidly. GOVERNMENT’S POLICY.

Mr Furniss quoted extensively from statements made by Ministers of the Crown in relation to the industry. They should judge the Government’s policy by what had been said by Cabinet Ministers, and then look into what had been done. He was not saying that because they happened to be Labour politicians, 'for he was not concerned with the political aspect. In the House, on the debate on the Primary Products Marketing Bill, the Prime Minister had said in effect that it was the Government’s definite policy to see that each man or woman who produced a thing which had a certain value in exchange, should receive remuneration in proportion, and not a part of it. The Prime Minister’s statement could not be misconstrued. The farmer’s payment, said the speaker, should be based, not upon the price of its exchange value in England, but on a value fixed upon its New Zealand sale export value. Mr Nash had stated that the payment to the farmer must be measured by the same tape as was used to measure payment to others. A wages basis would not be satisfactory, said Mr Furniss, as wages had no true relation to the service rendered by different members of the community. The farmer was earning for the country, and should have the right to have his earnings calculated on a wages basis, just as he had the right to ask that his payment for services rendered should be in .true proportion. "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” said Mr Furniss in comparing the earnings of town people with the farmer, and the farmer was only one in the long chain of production. He had the right to be paid at least as much as any other man in that chain of produetipn, and he had the further right to be paid for the extra hours he worked to keep the chain moving. If others received time and a-half for working more than 40 hours a week, the farmer should receive the same. There was a definite and undeniable disability thrust on the farmer, and there could be no plea that the promises made by Messrs Savage and Nash had been fulfilled. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. “I spoke from the same platform as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour recently,” said Mr Furniss, “and the speech was reported in the ‘Standard.’ It looked very interesting there. I made my case on the four points on which we base our campaign, and Mr Lee Martin followed me. He said he agreed with the validity of our claim, which he said was just. He said that provision was made in the Primary Products Marketing Bill to give effect to it. The next step should have been for the Act to place the farmer on a fair and equitable basis as agreed by the Prime Minister and the Ministei of Finance.” In the statement which, the speaker said, had been given to Cabinet on behalf of the industry, it was estimated that there was a difference of 5-8 d between the English lOd and the New Zealand Is 4Ad, the difference being to New Zealand’s disadvantage. They had told Cabinet that they were unreservedly at the Government s disposal to co-operate with them in every way, but, even if there was no argument ever put forward to show that their claims were unjust, no action had ever been taken to give effect to the claims. They could not be charged with failing to co-oper-ate with the Government, or with not assisting it to give effect to its legislation. It would be found, in Mr Langstone’s plan of Guaranteed Prices, that he had fixed the difference between the English price level and the internal price level as £lOOO sterling and £2400 New Zealand currency, a much higher figure than the farmers estimated. j They were, however,]

prepared to take Mr Langstone’s estimate.

Mr Savage had stated, in a foreword to a booklet on Guaranteed Prices, that a system of guaranteed prices and income produced no insurmountable difficulty and could be given effect to. , The Guaranteed Price, on I he statements of Messrs Nash and Savage, must be one which would give a price in accordance with the service rendered for the exchange value. Otherwise, a guaranteed price meant that it was a guarantee of loss, if it did not bridge the gap between costs and the sale price. Unless it did meet level, it could not be said to be a compensating price. MR NASH AND TRADE. Questioned by Dr. Sutch at the Monetary Committee’s inquiry, Mr Nash had stated that it paid us to trade with countries where the exchange rate was not as high as it was in New Zealand, and this showed that there could be no relationship between internal and overseas prices. Both Messrs Savage and Nash had admitted that there were no obstacles in the way of an equitable price, and the farmers were now entitled to ask why they were not being paid such a price. It was their right to demand that the promises made should be carried out, because they could not have a permanently prosperous country if they exploited the largest section of the community. MORTGAGE RELIEF. Mortgages were to be reduced, said Mr Furniss, who added that he would welcome criticism which showed that he was giving the legislation an interpretation not justified. The legislation stated that mortgages were to be reduced to enable a reasonably efficient farmer to carry on and to enable him and his family to live in a reasonable degree’ of comfort. The speaker said he could not give interpretations of reasonably efficient farmers or reasonable degrees of comfort. It was fixed at that, however, and mortgages were' to be reduced to a level enabling it to be done. They had to consider costs, which meant a reasonable living for a reasonable efficient farmer on the one side, and the Guaranteed Price on the other. The mortgages were apparently to be reduced to equalise costs and the Guaranteed Price. If they did so, there would be no equity left in farms, and eventually the proposal meant nationalisation without compensation. The speaker had alwajs believed that Socialism meant nationalisation of the land with compensation to the owners. The farmer could not obtain any real relief if he were rid of his mortgages, because it was only a provision to enable him to have a reasonable living standard. He would, in fact, be better off on the Public Works at 16s per day. FARM . LABOUR. The latest condition, said Mr Furniss, was the silliest yet. It related to the supplying of farm labour to replace the scores of young people who were leaving farms to settle in the towns. They received higher wages, and had better conditions, and on account of their greater physique, they easily replaced the town worker and became efficient labour machines. This replacement meant that there were rejects in industries, and the farmer was being offered 25s per week, out of the £3 fixed by legislation, towards their wages. The farmer was to train them as efficient farmers to replace those fully-quali-fied young people who had been born and bred on farms and who had gone to live in the towns. GOVERNMENT CHARGED. “No effective progress has been made yet towards giving effect Io the promises of the Government,” said Mr Furniss. “The cheese producer is going to find tha.t, when the final realisation is made, he is worse off under

Guaranteed Prices.” What was needed was an adjustment of costs under Guaranteed Prices, but if what had been done in the past was an indication, he did not want to see any more. When costs were down, prices declined from 1000 units to SOO units, but when prices rose, costs rose from 1000 units to 1300 units. The result was that a corresponding area in New Zealand was no longer under cultivation, as it was no longer profitable to keep it in production. The land in production as a consequence became menaced by rabbits, ragwort, and weeds of all kinds. “Costs will continue to go up, if we are to judge by the recent agitation of the manufacturers,” he said, “Rates and telephone charges increase as farmers throw in their land. What is to become of the whole social structure of the Dominion with conditions like this? Taxation last year increased £3 per capita, in spite of the fact that we are supposed to be receiving boom prices for wool and butter. The Government’s building works are inflating our internal currency, and yet we are supposed to be still trying to keep our social system going. What is going to happen if we have a price col lapse? If the price of dairy and farm produce collapses, the whole of our industrial system must also collapse, concluded the speaker.