Farmers Support Compensating Prices

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 124, 27 May 1937, Page 8

Farmers Support Compensating Prices

Farmers’ Union Policy Defended At the interprovincial conference of the New Zealand Farmers* Union at Dannevirke yesterday, delegates reprev senting tho Wellington Central, Manawatu, Wanganui, Southern Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa and Makara-Hutt provincial districts, reached a momentous decision in endorsing the union’s policy of compensating prices. The question “That this conference considers compensating prices for primary produce unsound in principle and that it would he impossible to implement such when prices fall to slump levels’* #as keenly debated at the instance of Mr. G. L. Marshall (Marton), who moved the remit on behalf of the Wellington Central provincial executive, and on being put to the vote was lost by 40 votes to 49. Speaking to tho remit in its original form, “That this conference considers guaranteed or compensating prices for primary produce unsound in principle, and that it would be impossible to implement such when prices fall to slump levels,** Mr. Marshall expressed the opinion that the nnion had somersaulted in supporting guaranteed or compensating prices. The past policy of the union had been against any Interference with the primary producers* industry but now the union had accorded its support to compensating prices. He felt that such a po'icy could not be implemented without recourse to the printing press and an orgy of inflation such as Germany had indulged in. The speaker quoted the remarks of Hon. R. Semple with regard to the impossibility of utilising the printing press to provide notes and remarked that the statement was on all fours with those utterances of Hon. J. G. Coates and Hon. W. G. Forbes. Ho did hope that the union would refuse to endorse such a policy. Mr. D. G. Gordon (Taihape) claimed that support for the policy of compensating prices was dangerous since the effect would be to start a vicious circle of rising costs. The union should devote its energies towards establishing a sound principle in regard to costs and their relationship to income. He admitted that the union had been fighting for this without success for the reason that its efforts had not been harmonised. Mr. J. H. Bremncr (Pahiatua) felt that finality would not be reached on the Temit because compensating prices and guaranteed priees were two different questions and should be separated. The Dominion president of the union (Mr. W. W. Mulholland) read a draft of the proposed plank of the union’s policy regarding compensating prices. Mr. J. K. Franklyn (Wanganui) asked where was the money to come from if the compensating price was fixed at 60 per cent, above the market price at Home? Mr. Mulholland said that he had no wish to involve himself in a discussion before he had made his statement on the union’s policy. Mr. W. Morrison (Wanganui) felt that tho Dominion executive of the union had been forced into adopting compensating prices by the dairy farmers. The guaranteed price had brought with it increased costs and the dairy farper, he felt, was entitled to ask for a compensated price to set of! those increased costs. Mr. H. Mprrison (Wairarapa) pointed out that the policy of compensating prices was adopted by tho last Dominion conference of tho union as a method of assisting the dairy farmer. The union had opposed guaranteed prices but the Government had applied guaranteed prices to the dairying industry and whatever virtues the system had, had been wiped out by higher costs and the dairy farmers were entitled to ask for a compensating price. “Let those who are advocating compensating prices show us that the scheme is sound,** remarked Mr. Franklyn. Mr. R. Craig (Kongotea) was against guaranteed prices, but if tho farmer’s produce was to be taken from him then ho was entitled to demand a compensating price to enable him to meet the higher costs. Mr. C. E. C. Webb (Levin) opposed the remit, stating that the mover had admitted the gap between costs and rereturns and had suggested tackling costs. That had been tried without success and the only remedy was a compensating price. The chairman of the conference (Mr. R. Sievers, Porirua) felt that the reference to compensating prices in the remit should be deleted to enable the conference to express its views on guaranteed prices. The conference agreed to the deletion of the words “guaranteed or’* from the remit. Mr. F. C. Jurgens (Bulls) questioned whether compensating prices would be workable. Did the union believe in compensating prices or had it adopted the policy as a means of pointing out to the Government the fallacy of its present policy t The principle of compensating prices was sound, said Mr. W. J. Thomas (Carterton), who contended that the policy of compensated prices was complementary to the union’s fight for the control of costs. It was his view that the principle of compensating prices would tend to put a brake on rising costs. Mr. J. McLeavey (Manawatu president) thought the scheme a reasonable solution for all time. Mr. Marshall, in iep!y to the debate, said: This will mean the ruining of the country. The Government will have to set up a printing press to spread the notes amongst tho farmers when prices overseas reach slump level. The remit was defeated by 49 votes