“SCHEME UNSOUND”

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 284, 29 October 1934, Page 10

“SCHEME UNSOUND”

RELIEF OF FARMER. CANDID CRITICISM BY MR GOODFELLOW. “Apart from several errors, the Commisssion had failed absolutely to recoinmend any sound scheme for the relief of the farmer or for the permanent and efficient control of the dairy industry by the industry,” said Mr W. Goodfellow in the course of an interview dealing with the report of the Dairy Industry Commission. “AVhat has been accomplished very thoroughly,” he said, “is to incorporate into the report a most doubtful and dangerous experimental scheme f<sr the socialism of agriculture, presumably prepared by Dr Campbell. It appears obvious that the Dairy Commission was appointed with that end in view.

“One naturally wonders whether this complete domination by a supreme council of three permanent officials would develop along the lines of Russia or the United States. At present the Russian system appeal’s to be in the running. The very name of the supreme body, which reports direct to the Prime Minister, is the Protection and Trade Council (Soviet). The scheme has undoubtedly been evolved by the two Americanised economists who advise Mr Coates on almost all matters, except local industries. These estimable young gentlemen, with their American degrees, inexperienced though they are, are the real planners. They are ambitious enough to endeavour to outbid both Stalin and Roosevelt, who so far have failed in their objective to successfully socialise agriculture.” The gross incompetence of this and past Governments had been the greatest obstacle to the progress of the industry, and the Government now contemplated rushing legislation through the House of Representatives without giving the industry an opportunity to discuss it, said Mr Goodfellow. The proposed legislation would place the dairy industry and agriculture in general under the complete domination of the Government. The dairy industry should and could run its own business much more efficiently than was possible by any Government. All that was required was that Parliament should give the dairy farmers the legislation asked for in 1923, which was an improvement on the

Danish system, and a thoroughly efficient organisation would rapidly develop. The farmers would then own and control their own business and would accept full responsibility. MAIN OBJECTION. The main objection to the high exchange, apparently overlooked by the Commission, was that it penalised the British manufacturer to the extent of preventing this country honourably carrying out the Ottawa Agreement. Further, it raised many internal costs and prevented a further fall in the price of goods, and it had proved to be unfair in its operation, as it paid a big bonus to the farmer when prices were high, and a small bonus when prices were low. If butter were Is per lb, the exchange would bo worth 3d, but when butter fell to 6d, the exchange was

worth only 1 pi. The elaborate reasons for not paying a subsidy, as set out in the report, were not convincing. The British Government could not object to a subsidy payment, as Britain had adopted it. The Commission suggested that a delegation should be sent to London to inquire into marketing, and to ascertain from the British Government how far it was going in the matter of agriculture. There was no need to send another delagation to London. All the information w r as available in New Zealand, and this question had already been answered by Major W. Elliot, British Minister of Agriculture, in stating that he was moving toward stabilisation of the agricultural position and a reasonable expansion in the production of food. It was suggested that, after obtaining the information, the British Government should be asked to arrange for a conference of representatives of all dairying countries which supply the British market, both Empire and foreign. New Zealand would be well advised to allow the British Government, which had a favourable trade balance with those countries, to handle all such negotiations. ADVANCES TO SETTLERS.

Referring to the Mortgage Corporation plan, Mr Goodfellow said that he was of the opinion that no system in any country was better than that of the New Zealand Advances to Settlers Department. It borrowed at lowest rates and spread repayment of interest and capital over 36j years. If this department were supplied with ample funds, and were allowed to advance up to 70 per cent of to-day’s values, the mortgage situation would rapidly solve itself without further Government interference. “The Mortgage Corporation idea appears to be designed to clean up the national balance-sheet by transferring a Jot of bad and .doubtful loans to a new account, which would then be gradually written down over a long period of years,” concluded Mr Good’fellow. “The huge loss on loans made by the Government, due to political control, is only further evidence of the failure of the Government in business.”