TOTAL INADEQUACY

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 47, Issue 2664, 1 September 1937, Page 5

TOTAL INADEQUACY

GUARANTEED PRICE FARMERS’ UNION VIEW METHOD OF COMPUTATION MARKETING ACT PROVISIONS. Condemnation of the price announced by the Government for dairy produce was voiced in strong terms at the quarterly conference of the Northern Thames sub-pro-vincial executive of the N.Z. Farmers’ Union held at Paeroa yesterday, delegates contending that the amount fixed was insufficient and that the Government had not followed the correct procedure of computing the pay-out according to the Primary Products Marketing Act. “The guaranteed price is such that the least said about it the better,” remarked Mr W. Mclnnes (Kerepeehi) when the subject was broached. Following an observation by Mr H. O. Mellsop, Auckland provincial president, Mr Mclnnes added that it was certainly inadequate. Farmers were still placed last by the Government. Manufacturing Costs Rise. The president, Mr A. H. Blackmore (Waihi), stated that the guaranteed price did not “fill the bill” last year. It had been proved to the Government in several sources that costs had risen considerably since the last price had been fixed. The dairy companies quoted by the Government had shown that there were extra costs in manufacture amounting to about 3d per lb. and the farmers’ union had made the increase 3 l-3d per lb. On top of that the farmers had been given id more and practically all that had been taken up in manufacturing costs, and the farmer would not get a penny more in the year. Wages would go up in the next few months, he added. The labour question would be greater than it had been in the past, as all knew that the basic wage would be raised and that would affect the farmer, as even at present he could not get much labour. In reply to Mr C. J. Townshend (Netherton), the provincial secretary, Mr A. E. Robinson, said that wages would not automatically increase with the rise in price.

Shortage of Labour. Mr Blackmore: No, but wages will be reviewed. Whether the Act provides for an increase or not, he added, farmers would have to pay more as they could not get labour. The Government said last year that it had forgotten the amount received by farmers from pigs, said Mr Mellsop. This year it had been taken in. He suggested that the Government should disclose the whole facts of the report of the committee which fixed the price. There had been majority and minority reports and the facts of those should be revealed. The Government had to cater for trades hall with both hands and also , for the farmer, declared Mr T. Considine (Netherton). It had fixed the price through experts who were acting for their own interests and not for the farmer, who was not given an opportunity to speak. Resolutions of protest would be ignored by those experts. The farmers’ union members on the committee did their best under the circumstances, stated Mr Mellsop. Text of Resolutions. Following is the text of the two resolutions put to the meeting and carried unanimously: “That this executive considers that the guaranteed price places the farmer, who is the producer of the goods of the country, in the last place in industry with regard to returns for his produce, and registers its most emphatic protest against the total inadequacy of the price to meet rising costs.” “That this executive requests the Minister of Marketing to explain how the guaranteed price was arrived at and why the provisions of the Primary Products Marketing Act had been so flagrantly departed from.” The first resolution was moved by Mr Blackmore and seconded by Mr ’ Townshend, and the second by Messrs . G. B. Haszard (Waihi) and H. Har- * den (Matatoki).