GUARANTEED PRICE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 204, 29 July 1939, Page 7

GUARANTEED PRICE

FARMERS’ UNION ATTITUDE. CLARIFYING STATFAIFNT. The guaranteed price situation was discussed at a meeting of the Feilding blanch of the Farmers’ Union yesterday. Members present explained that many dairy farmers held the mistaken view that the union, at the recent conference, and the Dominion president, had condemned the guaranteed price. That this was not the case was stated by the provincial president (Mr D. G. Gordon).

Air Gordon expressed the opinion that the views expressed by Air AA . AY. Alulhollnml had been misconstrued. The conference had not attacked the principle of the guaranteed price tor dairy produce, nor had the Dominion president said anything that could be construed as an attack on the principle. The conference had protested against the arbitrary alterations by the Minister of Marketing in the standards and prices recommended hv the Government’s Advisory Committee; that was the complaint of dairy farmers, and one which the conference had endorsed.

The conference disagreed, said AllGordon, with the Alinister’s suggestion that the prices fixed for the current season should be continued for the 1939JO season. The whole point about the discussion was that the conference considered the Government had failed to live lip to its promises under the Primary Products Alarkoting Act and had ignored the report of the Guaranteed Prices Advisory Committee, 1938, in fixing the price for the 1938-39 season. The committee, it would bo recalled, submitted a unanimous report, but its recommendations, based on its examination of the position of dairy limners and consideration of rising costs, were ignored by the Alinister of Marketing, who fixed his own price. The union’s complaint was against such procedure. That was clear and definite, and it was unfortunate that the references in the House by the Prime Alinister had led to some distortion of the true I acts with the result that dairy farmers felt thatthe Farmers’ Union had “let them down.” The union was definitely out to support the dairy farmer and to pro tect him. FUTURE CONTROL.

Afr Gordon said that the conference, in order to co-operate with the Government-, and in conformity with the union's policy of reduction of costs, had agreed to support (lie offer made b.v the Dairy Board’s Dominion conference to forego any increases in costs and to accept for the 1989-JO season the standards and prices recommended by the 1938 Advisory Committee. In reference to the Prime Alinister’s statement that he would have to give serious consideration to ending the guaranteed price scheme, the Dominion president replied that lie, personally, would welcome the return to the industry of the control of marketing, and ho had expressed the assumption that, if flic Government did decide to hanrl back the control of the scheme to tlio industry, it would give the industry facilities for credit, mass marketing, etc., to carry on a similar scheme. Air Ahilholland had also said that if Air Savage decided to go ahead with the proposal to end the scheme lie should call a conference of representatives of the industry in order that the position might be thoroughly discussed.

Tt would ho seen, suggested Air Gordon, that Air Alulholland had made no attack on the guaranteed price scheme and his statement was in the direction of suggesting that, if . the Government decided to make any alteration in Iho scheme, a conference of all interested parties should be called as soon as possible. Members present expressed themselves as being quite clear as to what hail taken place, and said that it was unfortunate that many dairy farmers had felt that the Farmers’ Union had attacked the scheme. The hope was expressed that ATr Gordon’s statement would clear any misconception held.