COMPENSATING PRICE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 83, 7 March 1938, Page 6

COMPENSATING PRICE

FARMERS’ CAMPAIGN. PROBLEM OF RISING COSTS. The aims of the compensating price campaign were explained to a meeting of the Alanawatu provincial executive of tho Farmers’ Union to-day by Air J. H. Furniss, chairman of the Dominion compensating price organisation set up by the Farmers’ Union. Mr J. H. AlcLeavey presided over a large attendance. At the outset, Air Furniss said that he did not intend to say just how the scheme would he put into operation, a.s there were several methods which could and would lie effective. The Farmers’ Union had offered to co-op-erate with, the Government in improving the lot of the dairy farmer, and until that offer was accepted a definite plan need not be disclosed. The concern at the moment was to get the Government to realise that the compensating price scheme was fairer than the so-called guaranteed price scheme now in operation. There were, added Air Furniss, only two methods. One was to reduce costs in keeping with the price received for tho produce on the open market; the other was to pay the farmer a price which would adequately cover the growing costa of production. The Government had adopted a. policy which made for increased costs, and the only alternative left was to pay tho farmer a truly compensating price. The four points on which the organisation based its claim for a compensating price were as follow: (1) Enable farmers to pay competitive rates of Wages. (2) Allow them reasonable interest on capital invested in their farms and stock. (3) Enable them to meet the increased costs imposed by legislation, including tariffs. (4) Allow them a remuneration commensurate with the service they render and with that obtained by other members of the community who render equal service.

The Alinister (Hon. W. Nash) had frequently stated that the guaranteed price met the situation and ensured to the farmer “a fair share of national income.” Air Nash had defined the average efficient dairy farmer as one producing approximately 1491 b of butterfat per acre. In a statement issued to dairy farmers in Taranaki the Alinister had set out a list of costs which he considered adequate to cover all costs of production. Tho statement, however, sa.id the speaker, failed to allow for some costs which were of a serious nature. There were no allowances for herd losses and replacements. Air Nash had argued that the efficient dairy farmer should make lid per lb hutterfat out of pigs, but he made no allowance in his list of costs for many costs in pigraising. Air Furniss strongly criticised the opinion of Air Nash as to what a dairy farmer should receive. If it was fair for a farmer to have £4 a week and £1 10s house allowance, was it equally fair that a butter factory manager should receive up to £lO a week with free house, milk, butter a.nd fuel ? “I do not imply.’'’ said Air Furniss. “that the factory manager is overpaid, but T do say that the disparity between the remunerations cannot be justified.” (Applause.) LABOUR DIFFICULTIES. The speaker dealt with the difficulty of securing farm labour. The Government had said on many occasions that a farmer’s wife and family should not have to go into the milking shed. That was all very well, hut what was the position? It was impossible to get efficient labour and in many cases wives and families had to work on the farm. The farm worker should receive a standard of remuneration comparable with others, and until that was done the labour problems on farms would never be solved. The wage of £3 os as fixed for the farm worker under the Agricultural Workers’ Act was at the rate of Is Id per hour for GO hours a week, a scale of hours frequently exceeded on dairy farms. Yet the lorry driver collecting cream received 2s 8d and 2s 9d an hour, and the freezing worker up to 3s an hour. The position was entirely ridiculous. Actually, continued Air Furniss, it got down to this: The Government had not kept its promises to the farmers. “We have been called the backbone of the country,” he declared, “and to a large extent we are; but we are not getting the consideration we deserve or the consideration we were promised.” The promises made by the Government were in effect a compensating price, the speaker contended. There was legislation on the Statute Book providing for it, but the issue had been avoided and the result was the so-called guaranteed price, which did not provide compensation for costs. The campaign for the compensating price was a very real one and it had to go on. “Our livelihood is at stake,” said the speaker, “because we are being crushed between rising costs and fixed prices.” He did not charge the Government with any ulterior motives ; the members of it were inspired by motives which they honestly thought were right, but in the meantime the farmer was suffering. A system of the regimentation of the people of New Zealand had been commenced, and it had to he stopped. Organisation was necessary ; otherwise the total nationalisation of the export trade would come about. x

The National Party, he was pleased to see, had taken up the compensating price scheme as a plank in its platform. The Government had said the compensating price would never come within the scope of practical politics, but they were finding out that they had been mistaken. “The compensating price must be adopted,” lie concluded.