DAIRY GUARANTEE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 220, 17 August 1939, Page 7

DAIRY GUARANTEE

QUESTION OF CONTINUANCE. AAV AH URI SUPPLIERS’ OPINION. Two sections of opinion were represented at the animal meeting of the Awahuri Co-operative Dairy Co., Ltd., yesterday, when, in view of resolutions of opinion given on the guaranteed prices at other factory meetings, Mr D. Beattie moved; “That this meeting of suppliers is in favour of the guaranteed price for butter.” He thought that the question should he in no way made political. Mr A. N. M.orcom said ho was in favour of a guaranteed price, hut tho motion left the Government open to give any price. Tho chairman (Mr N. Campbell) moved an amendment: “That tho guaranteed price for 193 D-40 should he that unanimously recommended by the advisory committee, plus all ascertainable increases in costs.” The chairman said the Government had suggested and given a guaranteed price. It had appointed an advisory committee to go into the question and make a recommendation to the Government. The industry had been represented on the committee, which had made a recommendation wliiicli had not been adhered to by the Minister of Marketing. The committee had been unanimous, and his resolution sought only to ask the Government to carry out the recommendations of the committee. There were too many resolutions passed all over tho country in one direction or another. He considered that the committee was the Arbitration Court of the farmer, and its recommendations should be carried out, plus the added costs. He hoped that there was no split among the Awahuri suppliers. The Government made mistakes, hut he considered that it should carry out the committee s recommendations. * Mr Campbell’s motion was seconded by Mr E. Hasloch. Mr F. Whitton considered the guaranteed price was a very deep question and the Government was in such a financial state that it could not guarantee any one. “I did not make the guaranteed price, because I am not Father Christmas,” commented the chaitman. Mr AVliitton: It is no good Father Christmas- giving a toy if he cannot pay for it. Mr E. 0. Bond: AA'e should supportthe chairman’s motion. Most dairy companies are agreeing that the committee brought down a fair recommendation, and if the Government discovered that it could not lino, a way to pay it had no business to make a pioniise to pay. (Applause.) Mr AVliitton. AA 7 e work on industry to stand on its own legs. The Awalniri Company should say wether it is in favour of the guaranteed pice or rot. From the financial position of thecountry, I consider that the Government iias made a great mistake, and we also are making a great mistake in asking it to do something it is not in a position to do. AYe should take the matter into our own hands. GUARANTEE OR NOT? Mr Beattie: ‘What we ought to consider is whether we should ask the Government to give a guaranteed price or not.” 'that was what Mr Savage wanted to know, he added, and it would not be a fair ballot of the industry because the sheep tanners would vote too. The chairman: T'e Government did not ask us in the fust place ulidher we wanted a guaranteed l rice. The amendment was carried.

LEVEL IS TOO LOW. DAIRY COMPANY OUTLOOK. TE AWAMUTU, Aug. 15. “The dairy farmer is not getting a fair deal from the Government under the guaranteed price plan,” said Mr A. J. Sinclair, manager of the le Awamutu Co-operative Daify Company, at the annual meeting to-day. “No more impartial tribunal was ever set up than the Guaranteed Price Advisory Committee of 1938,” lie continued. “It consisted of equal representation from the Government and the industry, and was presided over by Sir Francis Frazc-r. The committee’s recommendations were unanimous, and a grave injustice was inflicted upon the industry when the Government arbitrarily reduced the prices recommended.” Mr Sinclair added that the dairy farmer had no incentive to-day to develop his farm and increase his production with the help of outside labour. There was unfortunately an increasing tendency on his part to restrict his operations to an extent which could be handled by himself and his family. This was bad tor the industry, aiul equally bad for the country which could face its overseas commitments during the next lewyears only by a considerable increase in exports.

UNCERTAINTY ABOUT DEFICITS

The dairying industry was still completely in the dark, continued Mr Sinclair, concerning the manner in which deficits accruing in the dairy industry account would finally bo dealt with, as no direct' statement had ever been made on this subject by i ly member of the Government. “If it be the intention of the Government,” he said, “that these deficits should stand as a first charge against any surpluses in subsequent years, the guaranteed price is a misnomer, because it then becomes merely an equalisation scheme returning the farmers the actual market realisations over a period of years, and its only advantage is that it stabilises the farmer’s gross income from year to year without making adequate provision for liis increased costs. It is the duty of the Government to make a clear pronouncement on this matter.” The directors of the company, said the chairman (Mr E. 11. Rhodes) had consistently taken up the attitude that tile price recommended by the 1938 advisory committee should be paid to the industry, and this would have enabled butter factories to pay another 3d per lb of butterfat over the past season. “The industry is justified in asking for this price,” he said, “and also for the additional costs which have fallen on the dairy farmer since the committee’s report was submitted. The Government has promised to confer with representatives set up by the industry immediately the Hon. AY. Nash, Minister of Marketing, returns to Now Zealand.” QUESTION OF A VOTE. “Some farmers are a little panicky with regard fo the guaranteed price,” said Mr Rhodes. “They realise that this country is in a difficult position to-day and they fear that the Governnient would Ire glad of any. excuse to throw the scheme overboard and leave farmers to the mercy of overseas realisations, with no compensation for the great increases which have occurred in costs'.Over the past three year's, largely as a result of Government legislation. The dairy farmer should not bo

stampeded by fears of this nature, because the Government is well aware that such a proposal would make dairy farming so uneconomic that large numbers of dairy farmers would lie forced out of production, and the position of the country would become worse than ever.” Mr Rhodes expressed the opinion that if a straight-out vote were taken to-day among dairy farmers on the question: “Are you in favour of the guaranteed price plan?” over 90 per cent would vote in favour, having no alternative with costs at their present level. On the other hand, if the issue were placed before farmers in the following manner: “Arc you satisfied that the price paid under the guaranteed price plan represents the sum to which you are entitled under the Primary Products Marketing Act?” the majority, he believed, would ho just as great in the opposite direction, and that was the real issue before the dairy farmer to-day.