COMPENSATED PRICES

Grey River Argus, 14 August 1937, Page 7

COMPENSATED PRICES

ORGANISER’S ADDRESS At Greymouth PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED. Mr. J. Ryan, President of the West Coast Provincial Farmers’ Union, presided over a meeting attended by seven members of the Union yesterday, when Mr. J. H. Furniss, honorary organiser of the compensated price campaign, gave an address. Mr. Ryan, welcoming Mr. Furniss, apologised for the small attendance, due, he said, to the absence of members at the races. In his address, Mr. Furniss pointed out that the whole of the farming industry was concerned with the economic situation as it at present affected farming. The farmers be-, lieved that on the prosperity of the farming industry rested all of the future social progress of New Zealand, for the only exports of New Zealand saleable on overseas markets were those from the land. He came from Waikato and could see that Westland had a community of interest with Waikato, in that the farmers were mainly concerned with dairying. Those who were not were vitally concerned with the white pine industry which, he said, could not exist without the aid of the dairy industry. The speaker said that he would indicate the Movement’s claim for compensated prices, and the lines along which it was proposed to proceed. He was more concerned with the consolidation of work already done than with the exposition of the principles of the scheme, but, in view of the fact that his hearers had not been addressed on the subject, he would cover as much ground possible. By means of a graph he demonstrated the discrepancy in prices received since 1926, when, he said, the farmer received a reasonable proportionate return for his work. Up to 1929 the prices received ranged near the cost of living, but then'a decline set in until the widest margin of excess costs was in 1935. Whilst retail prices then declined quite considerably, they declined much Jess than did the actual prices received by the farmer for his produce.

TARIFF REDUCTION FAVOURED. The farmer could not continue to produce when he was receiving so much less than the cost of production, and it was the speaker’s contention that the gap between the level of selling and of production prices must be closet! before farmers could become solvent. That could be done by bringing down the cost of production and reducing tariffs to a level which would enable New Zealand to meet world competition. An alternative would be to raise prices internally, to a level which could be fixed by legislation. It was interesting to see just what the farmers actually produced and the value of the production in terms of what they could get for it in 1935 and in 1914. 'l‘hey would, not on money, but on articles of food, clothing and shelter. If the tariff barriers allowed it, they should reduce costs to a paying level. In 1914 the world offered to the farmer one ton of lead for the two bars he could get in 1935. Of coffee, he got approximately twice as much; cocoa, two and a half times more; silk, seven times as much; copper, 50 per cent, more; sugar, twice as much; palmoil, twice as much; rubber, eight times as much; benzine, 25 per cent, more, and glass, twice as much. In view of tnat. New Zealand should be overflowing with wealth, and not one man, woman or child should be in want. Nor should any farmer be financially embarrassed. If the farmer got a better return, his wealth could be enjoyed by the people of the country. It could be obtained in no other way except by the values of exports. This was an indication of the demand for our goods.

NO QUOTA. “There is not, and there isn’t today, any possibility of a quota so long as we can take goods in in exchange for our produce,” said Mr. Furniss “If we want something another country has not got, it would be impossible to carry on trade. The interruption and restriction, by tariffs, of the flow of goods to New Zealand, has deprived New Zealand of those things she wants.”

INCREASED PRODUCTION. From 1920 to 1935, the dairy production of New Zealand .increased 500 per cent., whilst farm efficiency increased by 75 per cent, to 100 per cent. The chart the speaker displayed would indicate the value of these increases. A car sold for £313 in England could be purchased in New Zealand for £4BO, the latter sum being created by the former by production which made it possible for the car to be imported. Obviously, if their production entitled them to purchase the car, it rightly belonged to them. “If we send butter overseas and it is sold for £213, and in exchange we purchase a car, then, by all the laws of reason and equity, divorced from politics, the car's extra cost should amount only to its freight,” said the speaker. “If, by legislative means, or in deference to a political policy, the car must be sold here for £4BO, if it is worth that much, the service rendered by the farmer should be remunerated in a like measure, for the difference is between the New Zealand price level, at which we are compelled to produce, the production cost of £4BO, and the selling level of £213.” . If the farmer were to be denied his due remuneration, they must ask how he was going to carry on. He had done so in the past, because long before 1920, and for a time since, he had been given a square deal, said the speaker. It brought the farmer no gain in that the whole of his efficiency was already being used in an effort to close the gap in prices, jney could not defeat the process of increasing efficiency and production again, because to increase production another 500 per cent, was impossible.

PRINCIPLES OF MOVEMENT. The speaker then proceeded to deal with the campaign itself, and said that it was based on the following points to obtain a price for the farmer that will enable him to pay:— 1. —Competitive rates for wages. 2. —Allow him reasonable interest on the capital invested in his farm and stock. 3. —Enable him to meet the increas-

ed costs imposed by legislation including tariffs. 4—Allow himself a remuneration commensurate with the services rendered to the country and with that obtained by other sections of the community rendering equal services. The last point was the crux of the whole question for none could deny that it was asking for anything unjust, or that it involved sacrifice on the part of anybody else. If they sold butter at 120/- cwt. in England, the actual return to them should be over 200/-. The speaker dealt at length with Guaranteed Prices and other matters, and at the conclusion of his address, I said he would answer questions QUESTIONS ASKED. To Mr. W. E. Morton, Mr. Furniss said that the £4BO referred to was the sale price of a car which was found from the farmer’s produce. Mr. J. Mulcare asked the speaker If he could give the cost of production in the Waikato district? Mr. Furniss: What are you going to base it on? Mr. Mulcare: On costs in your own locality. Mr. Furniss: Do you mean the. price under the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister? That is a fair price. Mr. Mulcare: No. Which would you regard as a fair price at the moment as compared with the guaranteed price? ; Mr. Furniss: It is a question of where you are going to start. It should not be just enough to cover costs, but something more. The speaker added that it would not re- 1 present a cross-section of the whole i industry to give the costs in any one i locality. To get a proper figure, a full investigation would be neces- I sary. Mr. T. E. Coates: You would want 1/6 per lb. to bring it to the scale i suggested by the Minister. Mr. Furniss: It wouldn’t do it. To do so -would be cheese-paring. Mr. Mulcare\ls it not a fact that the estimated cost of production was . given as 1/5 or 1/6? Mr. Furniss: That is so. Your costs here would be much greater than that. The speaker quoted at length from an article in "Tomorrow,” written in May last by Mr. C. Morgan Williams, ; M.P., on the question of guaranteed ( prices, and said that it was abso- | lutely untrue to say that the position , to-day was due to inflated land values. "If every farm mortgage j were wiped out, the benefit thus re- ’ ceived would be cancelled by the in- j creased costs of your labour made by : legislation during the past eighteen t months.” Mr. T. E. Coates, moving a vote of ; thanks to the speaker, said that the | ] position would have to be faced be- , fore long. ; The motion was seconded by Mr. < Mulcare and carried by acclamation. ( Mr. Stuart. Sim, of Heriot, who ac- , companied Mr. Furniss, outlined the < work accomplished in organisation in i < the South Island. I Replying to the vote of thanks, Mr. [ ] Furniss said “We must force this on ' < any other Government to do what we | < wish. It is not a political matter at I j all, but we must demand and get jus- ' tice and equity for the farmer.” i