N.Z. FARMERS’ RETURNS

Grey River Argus, 16 August 1944, Page 2

N.Z. FARMERS’ RETURNS

COMPARING WELL With Australia and Argentina BETTER COMPETITIVE CAPACITY HERE WELLINGTON, Aug. 14. . Hon. B. Roberts, Minister of Agriculture, stated to-day that what mattered most to the primary producer was not so much the price he received for produce as the margin between .these prices and the costs. We had been more successful in New Zealand than in most countries in keeping down nrices. Millions of pounds had been provided to subsidise primary industries and these subsidies had obviated .the need for higher prices by keeping farm costs low. Other price comparisons in regard to New Zealand produce had erred in ignoring the fact that before the war there were always differences be- ' tween the prices paid for New Zealand produce and the prices paid tor produce of other countries, Further, some of the countries for which prices were quoted normally exported only insignificant quantities of the product under comparison. A particularly careless error was that which disregarded the different stag- . es of the marketing process at which the price was taken. Another signit- ' leant source of error was the f ac *- that export prices paid under bulk purchase arrangement had been compared with payments under mutual ■ aid agreements. The only fair comparisons that could be made x export prices for butter and cheese were between New Zealand and Australia. Canada and America were normally importers of butter. Similarly witn regard to cheese, the U.S.A, and the Argentine were not normally exporters to the United Kingdom. Canadian cheese was not exported to Bri1 lain under mutual aid agreement, ' which made comparison impossible. Expressed in New Zealand pi ices, f.o.b. sale prices, Australian and New Zealand butter was 15.30 d. per lb., and 15.59 d. Cheese was at a pre- .. mium over Australia. The ciffery ence was based on market prem.ums ■ which -existed before the outbreak ’ °f war. When the returns to the farmers - were’ considered it was necessary to '-'take into account the value of all "the Government subsidies had to hold 1 down the farmers’ costs, either diror indirectly. When there was ’added to the basic guaranteed price, various cost of allowances that /have been made since the outbreak .t of war, and also the value of all the subsidies naid by the State for the benefit of dairy farmers, and when this total was compared with corresponding Australian figures, then New Zealand no longer appeared in an adverse light. The comparisons must also taire into account the fact that the Australian dairy companies obtain proceeds from their local market, where the wholesale prices are higher by twopence per lb., than their |-O-O--naritv and also higher than our local market prices in New Zealand. The only countries for which beef export prices could be compared were New Zealand, Australia and the Argentine, and again., the comparison could only be on the basis of tne full U.K. f.o.b. purchase price. In New Zealand this was mace up as follows: — Prices paid to the farmers at port works, 345. per cwt; amount credited to the Meat Pool Accounand to the Meat -Stabilisation Account 5s lOd per cwt; U.K. f.o.b. price, 395. lOd. The U.K. f.o.b. price for Australian beef was practically the same and that for the Argentine was 40s 6d, which represents the normal pre-war premium. The Minister gave reasons why comparisons that were made for porkers and baconers were not valic. He concluded by stating • that the Government believed that in the long run the wise policy was to stabilise the costs and the prices at levels that will ensure to the farmer a good living and enable the industry to hold its own in competition with other countries. NEED OF AUSTRALIAN FRUIT WELLINGTON, Aug. 14. The President of the New Zealand FfUit ana Produce Merchants’ and

Auctioneers’ Federation commented to-day on the statement by the New Zealand Minister to Australia, Hon. J'. G. Barclay, as Gosford, near Sydney, concerning the necessity of doing away with artificial trade barriers between Australia and New Zealand, particularly with regard to potatoes and oranges. He said: “Mr. Barclay, is on the right lines. The present trade barriers have grown up over the last 20 years, and it .is as ridiculous for Australia and New Zealand to raise barriers against each other as it. would bo for the North Island against the South. One year in three, Australia 'would be short of potatoes and onions and New Zealand would have an over-supply. When New Zealand’s short it should be drawing from Australia. War experiences has. shown us that Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and other islands must work, trade and plan together.