SURPLUS PRODUCE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 308, 26 November 1932, Page 4

SURPLUS PRODUCE.

QUESTIOX OF DISPOSAL. .Advancing the opinion that one of the largest problems confronting the world to-day was the disposal of its surplus production, Air G. L. Marshall, of Marton. claimed nt a meeting of the Wellington central provincial executive of tho Farmers’ Union at Feilding yesterday. that unless some satisfactory method could he arrived nt, in dealing with the problem, it would pay New Zealand to give its surplus produce away, or, alternatively, to dump it into

the sen. In placing his views before the meeting Air Marshall said he i>jnde no reference to under consumption having an effect oh the point he was aiming nt, hut he had watched tho trend of events in regard to the production in the world for the past two or three years and felt satisfied that a problem had arisen now in connection with the

disposal of surplus production. The position, said the speaker, was not going to be secured by raising the exchange rate —that was only a temporary expedient. The speaker went on to refer to factors which had resulted in an immense increase in New Zealand's primary production, stating that a position liad arrived in

the Dominion whereby it was now necessary to consider wlrnt to do with

the country’s surplus production

may he considered even wise to destroy it. hut that was not desired unless more suitable means could be found to deal with the situation. Air Marshall said he noticed recently that 12.000.000 hags of coffee had been dumped nt sea. Two States of America had prohibited the production of cotton, while other States had ordered the ploughing in of every third row of cotton trees.

Ho suggested that the union should

get into touch with tlie Argentine and Australia to ascertain what action they were taking to deal with the position. As a matter of fact, there was a 10 per cent, surplus production in the New Zealand meat output which was depressing the market, and if that could he got out of the way the speaker thought prices would rise. Assuming the value of the output at £35,000.600, Mr Marshall claimed that 10 per cent, would mean a loss of £3,500.000. while a 20 per cent, rise would return round about £6.000.000. which would he a gain of £3.000.000. He ■was looking to the future and coidd see the world producing more and more with no effective means of disposing of the production. Mr Marshall understood that some 30.0fX1.000 Chinese would starve to death this year and felt it would be a most Christian like thing to ask them to accept

our surplus produce for nothing. ft would pay the country to give it away. ' It it did not do this and could find no other means, then it would he better to take it to sea and dump it. Concluding. Mr Marshall moved that the union' lie asked to take up the question with the Argentine and Australia with tire object of ascertaining what proposals were in view for dealing with the situation.

Mr AV. L. G rico (Feilding) seconded the motion. Mr A. Howard (Alarton) felt that it would be dangerous to proceed very far with the proposal. If the producers laid it down as sound to take steps to keep the ’prices of their produce up, they would have to admit the rights of others to take like action. Ho did not agree that production would continue to increase in face of the existing conditions. Tt followed tliat as soon as falling prices set in grenter production followed, but as lower prices persisted production began to decline. There were two phases. AYe had had the first which witnessed greater production and we were now entering upon the second which would see production decrease.

In a general discussion members of the executive expressed the opinion that producers should not let the worry of over-production influence them, but should continue to make every effort to maintain the quality of their produce. On being put to the meeting, Air Marshall’s motion was carried on a show of hands.