DAIRY INDUSTRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 10 February 1938, Page 13

DAIRY INDUSTRY

MAINTENANCE COSTS REPLY TO THE HON. W. NASH In an official statement issued on Tuesday, the New Zealand Farmers’ Union replied to the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash), who stated at Hamilton during the debate on guaranteed prices “that the amount allowed for maintenance costs in the guarartr 1 price was greater than that suggested by the Farmers’ Union.” The farmers Union denies that it suggested any amount for maintenance costs, and it asserts that this had been pointed out to the Minister on a previous occasion when he had made the same statement. “Mr Nash’s reference is to the statement by the Farmers’ Union submitted to the Guaranteed Price Committee last October,” says the union. “In this statement the Farmers’ Union estimated the increases in costs which had taken ' place since the previous year, 1936-37. j There was no reference at all to the j cost of production a lb. of butter-fat i except the figure of 4.093 d taken from \ the Dairy Commission Report of 1934. | Mr Nash ev : - 7 entlv added to this figure' the Farmers’ Union committee’s estimate of increases in farm costs of .ITi, which would give 4.643 d. The Government’s figure for the last year was 5.069 d. “However, prices had risen consid- | erably between 1934 and 1936, and if ' Mr Nash desired to obtain a figure to compare with the committee’s csti- j mate of farm costs it would have been \ only fair to increase the 1934 base figure by approximately 20 per cent., which was about the percentage of increase in costs from 1934 to 1936. “If this 20 per cent, increase in costs were added to the base figure the production cost might be fixed at 5.46 d per !b of butter-fat, or almost a half-penny above the Government figure for farm costs, which is absolutely in line with the estimate prepared by the Farmers’ Union Committee. "The practice of adding 20 per cent, of the total figure is. of course, a very rough and ready one, but it is the only basis on which any comparison with the Government’s figures can be made in the way that Mr Nash has tried to On if. “In any case, however, it. should be emphasis I that the Farmers’ Union i had n.o intention of : iggesting a cost i

of production figure a lb of butter-fat, and nothing in the Farmers’ Union statement can be read into it to suggest that such was their intention. All that the Farmers’ Union committee did was to estimate the increases in costs over the 1936 fig e. "Another point which also requires i clearing up is the Minister’s statement that the Farmers’ Union agreed that]

• I £3 5s a week was a reasonable wage | i for farm labour. The fact is that the Farmers’ Union agreed with the Minis- ' ter of Labour on a sliding scale of ! : j wages for dairy-farm workers, the j i j sliding scale to be based on the payout the farmer received from the fac- ’ lory. The principle adopted 'purely I for the purposes of the calculation) was j that the output of butter-fat per labour J

[unit was agreed to be taken as 60001 b, and on ea-h 60001 b of butter-fat it was agreed that the incrc;. -,o* in the guaran- | ted price would be shared, half to the I employer and half to the employee, so thr.t the amount of the dairy-farm worker’s wages is determined by t’.*» amount of the guaranteed price. The larger the guaranteed price the higher Jthc wages to the workers.”