COMPENSATED PRICES

Grey River Argus, 27 August 1937, Page 10

COMPENSATED PRICES

(To the Editor.) Dear Sir,—l trust you will allow me space in which to deal with some peculiar misconceptions as to the obiective behind the “Compensating i Price Campaign,’’ which are apparent in your leading article upon my ! address. I think you will agree that i the quotations I made from , the j speeches of the Cabinet Ministers were entirely appropriate to the I question, and the deductions drawn I quite justified, especially as Mr Lee iMartin stated on the public platform lat Pukekohe, and has since stated many times elsewhere, that the objective of the Compensating’Price Campaign as outlined in the four points, which I gave, had his entire approval, and that it was the intention of his Government to give effect to them. Regarding my repudiation of political motive, I agree that it should not Ibe necessary, nor would it be so, I were it not for the attitude of the i Government as illustrated in your edijtorial article, which insists upon regarding any criticism as inspired by I political animosity. ' I note that you agree that this country is still a primary producing I country, “probably too much so,” and ' that exporters must be always considered in economic planning. _ What • you apparently fail to realise is that jthis countr.y is essentially a primary producing country due to its geoIgraphical position and its climatic advantages, also that our ability to !maintain the highest possible standard of living with the lowest expenditure of human effort depends entirely upon the extent to which we avail ourselves of our power to produce i those things which we can most economically produce and exchange them I for t hose goods which can most ecoInomically be pi’oduced by other sections of the human family abroad, i Just what you mean when you say we I are “probably too much”, a producer 'of those products which the world I offers us such a favourable exchange lin goods for, and which nature has so abundantly fitted us to produce, is not very clear, but is sufficiently disturbing to all farmers as a general undertone to all the activities of the present Government, a Government I which I had hoped would appreciate jthe essentials of true economic exI change in relation to the maintenance of a high standard of living, and i which I am still hoping will honour I those statements of policy made by I Mr. Savage, Mr. Nash and Mr. Lang[si one in relation to the need for giving to all the full exchange value of their labour. I dealt with the incidence of the mortgage upon farmers in the only way it can be dealt with, naturally, hv using the figures supplied in the Dairy Commission’s report which were’ the result of a comprehensive investigation, and were used as authoritative by the present Govcrnment in its attacks upon the last I Government, these present a cross | section of the dairy industry and show the incidence of costs per lb. of butterfat. If you will refer to those figures you will find that the maximum average burden per lb. of (butterfat in mortgage interest is not I more than 21d per lb. If you have (studied the reports on costs supplied by the Committees set up by the (Farmers’ Union, a report which was (applauded by Mr. Lee Martin at the Farmers’ Union Conference, and by the Committee set up by the New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Company you will find that, the increased costs of production during the last eighteen months have cancelled out any benel fit which could accrue from reduction in mortgage, as the increased production costs total at least 25d per lb. of butterfat, and are still rising. As far as our requiring a still larger dose of the “Guaranteed Price (Medicine” it is recognised by all pracI tical dairy farmers that the Guaranjteed Price has brought no gain whatever to the dairy farmer, as the price paid under the so-called Guaranteed Price will not exceed the price realised by the produce actually when exchange is added, especially is this the case with cheese, the price paid for this being less than that obtained for it by the Government, so much so that many cheese factories are closing down owing to high costs and the controlled price. Regarding the assertion that we count upon forcing up the Guaranteed Price by "agitation.” Our deImand is for the fulfilment of the projmises made by Mr. Savage, Mr. Nash and the other Cabinet Ministers, that we should receive the full exchange value of our labour, and be measured by the same tape as is used to measure others. It is surely not very complimentary to the Government to assume that an agitation is needed to ensure redemption of their promises? If as you state, an«l as lhe Ministers have stated, the provisions of t lie Primary Products Marketing Act for giving effect to our requests, then obviously we can judge of the Government’s sincerity when the new “guaranteed price” is announced. The assertion that we require “boom” prices would only infer that we were suffering from “boom” costs, since we are asking only for the closing of the “gap” between the level at which we are compelled to sell, and the cost level at which we are compelled to produce.

What about farm workers? The assertion that I want them to be deprived of any wage standard at all is utterly contrary to fact, and to the statements made in any address I have given, or any of my writings. I distinctly said that the farm workers were grossly underpaid when compared with town workers, that they were leaving the land in consequence and were entitled to payment in relationship to their importance in the general scheme of things. If town workers are entitled to a forty hour week and, say, £4 10s Od or £5 0s Od oer week, then the country worker* is entitled to the same, and in addition, to extra payment for the extra hours worked. At. no time have I denied this, but to enable farmers to meet this payment we must be paid in relation for our services in terms of “the payments made to others who render equal service” as Mr. Nash staled.

The statement that I ask a payment. at flie rate of 200/- per cwt. when butter touches 120/- is divorced from its context. I maintained that if I export hut.ter to Britain where it is sold for 120/- per cwt., and with this sum nurchase British boots which I bring out to New Zealand. I am entitled to claim as the measure of the service I have rendered the people of New Zealand, payment foi' my butter in terms of the boots I have rendered available to the neople of New Zealand at the same rate as the New Zealand boot-makers are paid for their boots. The difference now enforced between what the Now Zealand manufacturers services are valued at and that accorded

the farmers is illustrated by the example of boots and butter where the difference between the landed cost of imported boots and that of locally made boots, built up by tariffs, etc., is used as an example of failure of the Government to implement its policy statement that payment in accordance with the service rendered, or that each man or woman who creates a thing which has a certain exchange value should receive the whole of that value, and not merely a part of it.

If, and not until we do, receive this, can we pay our farm assistants a wage in keeping with the service they render. We demand a compensating price which shall close the gap between the price level at which we sell our produce and the level which has been fixed by legislative enactments at which we are forced to produce. The amount of this price is determined by the gap, therefore the payment of this can be evaded only if the Government repudiates its promises, under no circumstances could it give us more than justice, nor more than we would receive were we allowed to exchange our goods in return for goods without a tariff barrier, under which circumstances we would require no compensation, for there would be no “gap.” To state as you do that farmers are treated fairly and should accept, the Guaranteed Price as the “best possible and a fair thing into the bargain,” is a piece of advice which displays a curious lack of knowledge of human psychology, as well as the actual relationship of what the farmers can earn in terms of goods for the country, and what they are allowed to receive in ratio to the goods produced here and the remuneration given. To tell us to be satisfied, or farm labourers to be satisfied, with a system which demands from us acquiescence in a scheme so demonstrably unfair is an insult to our intelligence. If you object to a goods exchange basis,' then the only fair alternative is payment per hour as skilled workers at the rates allowed for skilled town workers, with allowance for overtime at comparative rates, etc. For any one to deny this is to assume that farming is so low in the scale of relative value to the nation, and farmers so low in mentality, that that a lower standard of intelligence is required, and a lower remuneration .therefore justified. I think farmers will not. readily agree to this. Again let me say I am not concerned with the political fortunes of any political party save only in-so-far .as each party shall be prepared to give legislative’ effect to those principles of equity upon which alone a prosperous and stable social structure can be built and maintained.—Thanking you for your courtesy, I am, etc., J. I-I. FURNISS. NELSON, 16th. August, 1937.