DECISION DEFERRED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 149, 26 May 1939, Page 9

DECISION DEFERRED

MEAT AND WOOL PRICES. FARMERS AND GUARANTEE. A lengthy discusssion took place at the annual inter-provincial conference of the Fanners' Union, which opened at Mnsterton, yesterday, on the subject of guaranteed prices for meat and wool, 'the conference unanimously' carried a resolution agreeing to defer a decision until the findings of the Royal Commission to he set up by the Government to investigate the sheep industry arc available. The debate opened on the following remit from the Wanganui Central branch of the Wanganui province: That this conference is unanimously opposed to the adoption of the principle of a guaranteed price for meat and wool. By overwhelming majorities mass meetings of farmers had expressed themselves as being absolutely opposed to guaranteed prices, said Mr G. Peat (Wanganui) in moving the remit, which was seconded. “We know what has happened to the guaranteed price for dairy produce,” said Mr Bremner (Paliintun), “and I feel that fanners would he sacrificing their liberty if they accepted guaranteed prices for meat and wool.” It had been claimed that the guaranteed price would break up an alleged wool ring, but there was no wool ring in existence. Farmers had the right to sell their wool as they wished, but under a guaranteed price scheme they would ho deprived of that right. Mr H. J. McLeavey (Manawatu) considered that farmers should first decide whether they were prepared to accept the principle of _ guaranteed prices. The price to be paid was not a factor until a decision had been reached as to whether the scheme was acceptable. Mr E. 0. Bond (Manawatu) said he felt that farmers had allowed their objection to the idea of a guaranteed price to blind them to what mav he | offering under such a scheme. From I his experience as a dairy farmer lie was satisfied that the guaranteed price scheme, as applied to the dairying industry, had conferred groat benefits on the industry, and to those who questioned this assertion he was prepared to produce his books and his income tax returns. Farmery had not offered any alternative and no progress would be made by simply voting out the idea of a guaranteed price. UNION’S ALTERNATIVE. Farmers had offered an alternative, said Mr G. Webb (Levin), who reminded the conference that compensating prices was a platform of the union policy. That was the alternative the union offered, and any scheme of guaranteed prices would be useless without some assurance of a price sufficient to meet rising costs. An amendment moved hv Mr C. E. S. Smith (Mangaweka), that the conference first consider alternatives before voting on the principle, was lost on a show of hands by 34 votes to 33. Mr D. G. Gordon moved an amendment to be embodied in the remit to express the view that guaranteed prices were not in the best interests of the community or the farming industry, and that any such scheme would result in the depreciation of farmers’ equities. The chairman (Mr Lloyd Hammond) denied any suggestion that the union had not offered alternatives. It had submitted to the Government that the exchange should ho allowed to go free. Everyone would benefit under such an economic ndiustment. It had been stated that if the exchange rose costs would rise, hut statistics showed that at the time the exchange was pegged at £125 the cost of living fell. A free exchange would allow of a sound economic adjustment and would bring the New Zealand pound into a closer economic relationship with sterling. Mr G. A. Hansen (Pahiatua) disagreed with the contention that a free exchange would confer any real benefit on sheen-farmers, whose position, he appreciated, was serious. He considered that stability could only ho reached hv controlling imports and loading them with any drop in the prices for our produce. Mr Bolton (Dnnnevirke). said he approached the question with an open mind. He would like to ask those favouring a. guaranteed price whether they expected any more under such a scheme than they would receive on the averages over 10 years. There was a chorus of “No,” and Mr Bolton then said. “Why, then, support a guaranteed price, since it appears to offer nothing more?” It had been stated that production was falling and land w.y-s going out of production. That would lead to a lower standard of living: how, then, could a guaranteed price, offering nothing more than the average of prices over the past 10 years, hope to solve a position of falling production ? Mr Ramsdcn (Kumeroa) felt that the solution of the difficulty in Empire free trade, arguing that New Zealand was enjoying its high standard of living on the strength of the English market, but was now placing a check on imports from England, which would tend to destroy our market. Mr J. Kilgour pointed out that the remit was hardly correct in its wording by suggesting that the conference was unanimously opposed to the guaranteed price. From what ho had heard of the debate the conference was not unanimous. The conference agreed to delete the word "unanimous.” INCIDENCE OF COSTS.

Mr D. L. Younger (Feilding) said that it was not wages costs that the union objected to, but the incidence of taxation. When ho took up his property in 1912 his taxation, rates, etc., totalled in that year £72. His l>est year from the point of view of returns was 1928-29, and in that year his taxation amounted to £44-4. 3* or the yeni ended March 31 last his taxation totalled £703 15s. Those figures, ho claimed, demonstrated how the farmer was being increasingly burdened with higher taxation and that was what ho referred, to when he spoke of the burden of costs. Mr C. Smith (Wanganui) moved an amendment that the question of a guaranteed price for meat and wool ho deferred until after the findings of the Royal Commission which had l>een set Tip. Ho felt that in the minds of all farmers present there was objection to the idea of guaranteed prices. He did not agree that the conference should turn down the offer without 6ome investigation. Ho suggested that when the findings of the Commission were available farmers would then know what they needed and what was of equal importance, they would know more truly what their position was. He thought it would he unwise to shut the door on the offer of the guaranteed prices without some investigation. Mr Bremner disagreed with the proposal of Mr Smith. The Commission would take some considerable time and immedate relief was necessary, he said, j There had been so many increased I charges imposed on tlio farming indus-

try during tho past year that relief was called for. COMMISSION .WAS ASKED FOR, Mr Hugh Morrison reminded the conference that the union and the Shoepowners’ Federation had asked the Government to set up a Royal Commission to investigate the sheepfarmers’ position. The Government had agreed and ho considered that Mr Smith’s amendment was a reasonable one, because it would result in making available information that farmers had not got to-day. Mr Daniells suggested that tho amendment include a recommendation that the Prime Minister fix an early reporting date for the commission. Accepting tho addition to lus amendment, Mr Smith expressed agrement that the position of tho industry could not stand up to any undue delay in the application of, remedies. The amendment was carried by 55 votes to 22. Later in the discussions, when dealing with proposals for safeguarding mortgagors, Mr Peat proposed that the union should recommend a shortterm moratorium as a mode of immediate relief, pending the recommendations of tho Royal Commission. Delegates discussed the remit and the pronosal was rejected on a show of hands.