Dairy Farmers and Guaranteed Price

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 173, 25 July 1939, Page 6

Dairy Farmers and Guaranteed Price

Cannot Revert to Old Order

MUST CHECK UPWARD COSTS SPIRAL OPPOSITION LEADER’S REPLY TO CHALLENGE

Per Preee Aeeocietlon. WELLINGTON, July 24. The failure of the Government to pay a guaranteed price for dairy produce sufficient to place dairy-farmers on a basis comparable with the general standard of living was referred to by the Leader ©£ the Opposition (Hon. A. Hamilton) in a statement to-night. The Afinister of Marketing (Hon. Walter Nash), said Air. Hamilton, had passed over entirely the basic factors set out in the Primary Products Alarketing Act for assessing the guaranteed price. “As wc are now within a week or so of the end of the dairy year it is not to be wondered at that many expressions of opinion are being offered by farmers’ organisations on the merits and demerits of the guaranteed price system,” said Air. Hamilton. “Though there is general satisfaction expressed with the present marketing system there is much criticism of and disappointment with the Government’s failure to pay a price that will place dairy-farmers on a basis comparable with the general standard of living throughout New Zealand. Dairy-farmers have not forgotten the Government’s treatment of the price recommendation of the special committee set up by tho Government to fix the price for the 1938-39 season. “Farmers looked upon that committee as the dairy-farmers’ arbitration court setting out to fix a fair price. The undercutting of the committee’s decision meant a decrease of £1,289,000 to the dairy industry for the year. As events have proved the farmers received short payment of that amount at least from the Government without taking into consideration at all the failure of the Government to check the upward spiral of costs. Dairy-farmers have been told virtually that the price to be paid for butterfat must be based on London realisations and that continued deficits would break the scheme down. “To say that there is no alternative to the present system than to revert to the system operating prior to 1936 is wholly misleading. This is not now possible for obvious reasons. It might also be asked if a reversion to the 1936 conditions would bring about a free exchange as existed at that date. But at present many farmers can see the Government’s breach of faith with them through ever-rising costs, exchange control and the breakdown of both the letter and spirit of the promises made in 1935 and afterwards embodied in Primary Produce Marketing Act. This is the crux of the dairy-farmers’

situation to-day and auj r other discus sion is away from the point.

‘ ‘ What the dairy-farmers are concerned with as well as farmers generally is that if the Government cannot reward farmers with the same yardstick measurement as is used for other sections of the community, is it not then a fair request to ask that other sections of the community should be rewarded with the same measuring tape as is used on the farmers? All aro agreed that dairy-farming constitutes a very important basic part of our economic life as docs farming generally, and it does seem only fair that dairyfarmers should not be asked to work on a lower standard of reward than other sections. ”