MARKETING OF PRODUCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 4 December 1940, Page 2

MARKETING OF PRODUCE

EXPORT DIVISION’S REPORT DEBATE IN HOUSE GUARANTEED PRICE AND COSTS ;( [From Our Own Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON. This Day. ' In opening the debate in the House i 1 of Representatives last night on the reports of the Government’s Marketing ’j Department which were presented ear--1 i lier in the session. Mr J. G. Barclay ; j (Government, Marsden) said the Ex- • port Marketing Division had handled ; | produce to the value of over £62.000.- ; 000 (New Zealand currency) during the ’ last season. The full season’s figures ’ were not in the annual report of the ‘ department. They were given only J until 31st July. He had the completed figures and these showed that dairy [ produce exported during the full sea- • son was valued at £25.499.000. meat at | £19.500.000. wool £16.379.000. tallow. ' woolly skins and other exports bringing [up the total. It was a tremendous amount of produce. r Mr F. W. Doidge (National. Tauran- [ ga): It shows what you owe to the far- [ Mr D. C. Kidd (National, Waitaki): j He is not grateful to you. Mr Barclay said the Government had always been grateful to the farmer for 1 his production, and he thought most of the farmers were grateful to those who had handled their goods—to the railwaymen and the seamen and others. The Minister of Marketing. Mr Nash, had done more than anybody else to bring stability to the sales of produce and to the farmers. Mr W. J. Poison (National. Stratford): Did you say stability—or del | bility? ; j Mr Barclay said the Government had brought order out of chaos in market- ' ing. The deficit in the Dairy Industry Account was £2.160.336. The guaranteed price was still operating, and would continue to operate after the I ' war. The member for Waikato (Mr j Goosman) and others would like to do ' away with the system, but he (Mr Earclay) had found few farmers who objected to the principle of the guaranteed price. During the last three months of the dairy season the output 1 of butter had*increased by 27 per cent. ’ and cheese by 60 per cent. 1 Mr Doidge: You can’t take credit for that. 1 Mr Barclay: Of course we can. If we : v ere down we would soon be blamed I for it. • Mr Poison said the Government drive ■ for increased production was respon- : sible to some extent for the increase. Opposition voices: And the wonderful 1 season. Mr Barclay said that the North Auck- ? lancj Dairy Conference had passed a ■ resolution to the effect that increase in 1 production should" not be made public. 1 Mr Doidge: The farmers are proud of 1 it. and they are doing it for Winston j ' Churchill. i MR BROADFOOT’S CRITICISM ( Millions had been taken out of the | | farmers’ pockets and given to less j ; worthy members of the community. I ( declared Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National. 1 ' Waitomo). The Prime Minister <Mr Fraser) ask- j f ed who the less worthy members of the community were. Mr Broadfoot: The people who are ; not working the number of hours, and j who are getting more wages than the ' farming community. They are taking money they have not earned. They are ! less worthy. Mr Broadfoot contended that the economic stabilisation conference had been called by the Government to escape the jam it was in. It was a conference of futility because the findings were not being observed by the Gov- ‘ ernment. Criticising the guaranteed price, he described it as the glittering name that had been given to the equalisation scheme. There had been no : such thing as stabilisation of costs. : which had been increasing for the last : five years. They were still increasing ’ and under the present regime they would continue to mount up even l higher. I Although. Mr Broadfoot > the dairy farmers were receiving good ; returns on paper from the Reserve i Bank, that paper was lacking purchas- : ing power, and each day the position : was becoming worse and worse. The • Government was not equating produc- , tion to credit. The people of this couni try were told that they were going to i be insulated against overseas prices. but the Minister of Marketing had told . the Dairy Conference that prices overseas were a factor that had to be considered in the main in fixing the guaranteed price. The insulation theory ; was one of the theories that had gone wrong. The marketing report brought home the fact that the only way to increase production and to follow out the findings of the Economic Conference was to do as the dairy farmers had done—work harder and produce more. MINISTER’S ACTION DEFENDED Mr B. Roberts (Government. Waira-x-apa) said that during the last few months there had been some fierce criticism of the Minister of Marketing, but he considered that the Minister's action had been fully justified by the results. He pointed out that at the present time conditions were such that with only one buyer for our produce, Eritain. the Government must see that there was a national policy in relation to farming, at any rate during the war. The Government, contended Mr Roberts. had brought stability to the dairy farmers, and its aim now was to bring stability as far as possible to the dif- ! ferent sections of the community. That might not be possible, but it could try. GUARANTEED PRICE SCHEME ATTACKED A forthright attack was launched by Mr W. S. Goosman (National. Waikato) on the guaranteed price scheme, his criticism erf the deficit in the Dairy Industry Account bringing him within range of Government interjections. "What,” he asked, “has the guaranteed price done for the dairy industry After your years’ experience of it the ’ industry-is mortgaged to the extent of j j just on £2.000.000.” I “It has drawn that £2.000.000.” pointed out Mr J. Thorn (Govt.. Thames). “The daii*y industry has a mortgage of £2.000,000 on it. and it is paying interest on it.” repeated Mr Goosman. A Government member: Who gets the money? Mr Goosman: Never mind who gets the money. It is paying compound iiv terest. “Look out. you’ll get in a tangle.” warned Mr A. S. Richards (Govt.. Roskill). Mr Goosman: Not a tangle like the Minister for Interjection! He went on to say that every pound of butter and

| every pound of cheese produced would have a mortgage on it. The dairy industry did not want the Minister to ask Britain for a higher price, Mr Goosman added. All it wanted was that the Minister should keep his word and cut costs. | Mr Barclay: In other words, cut i v. ages. Mr Goosman: No. we don't want to • cut wages. A Government interjector: Can a leoJ pard change his spots? MINISTER’S REPLY The Minister of Marketing (Mr Nash) gave a detailed account of the i procedure to be followed by the Government in the purchase of dairy proI duce. his remarks following the lines of previous statements on this subject. Dealing with factory costs. Mr Nash emphasised that the promise he had ; Riven to the Dairy Conference stood, namely, that if the sum allowed in the guaranteed price for factory costs was exceeded the Government will immediately take the matter into consideration. “I think we will strike grave difficulties,” said Mr Nash, “although we have got some arrangement now with the people at Home in which they say that the agreement we have with them shall continue until there is an element of stability in the market at Home. That doesn't alter the fact that we may be faced at that time with an abnormal output, alongside the competition from margarine and supplies from other countries.” That would be a dangerI ous and difficult period to meet, but he had told the dairy farmers that the | Government would meet that position. That was the time when the guaranteed price w’ould again require to be given some consideration. Mr W. J. Poison (National. Stratford): What do you mean by that? Mr Nash replied that they would have to give the guaranteed price consideration if there was such an abnormal fall in ihe price of butter overseas. They would have to protect the dairy farmer from it by paying him something approximate to his costs and something for his own living, irrespective of realisations. Mr H. G. Dickie (National, Patea): Stacking up a few more million* j against the industry. Mr Nash said he w r as satisfied on the evidence that the dairy farmers were better off under the procedure that had been in operation for the last four years than they could have been without that procedure. In the second place marketing machinery had been organised as near to perfection as possible. That was the testimony of New Zealand’s competitors. They said that the New Zealand marketing machinery in London prior to the war was giving the service with the least waste in distribution. the lowest charges, and more competent advocacy of the product than any of the other countries. With that record he was prepared to let it go to the farmers of this country and let them judge when they knew all the facts.