LOCAL BUTTER PRICES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21377, 29 December 1932, Page 11

LOCAL BUTTER PRICES

Sir, —Even if Mr. A. J. Willis were correct in stating that my proposals for the local butter market ai;e merely an adaptation of the Paterson scheme, which has brought an additional revenue of £2,000,000 annually to the butter producers of Australia, this should not be regarded as an objection. There is no similarity, however, and I have explained that the Paterson scheme cannot be applied to this Dominion. The other point he makes is that .1 am attempting to establish the principle of price-fixation on the local market, whereas I opposed a similar attempt made by the Dairy Produce Board on the Home market in 192425. On the Home market, our butter represented 22 per cent of the total; on the local market we have no competition. The first proposal was an attempt to prove that the tail would wag the dog, but my present proposals are not open to that objection. He is incorrect in stating that I opposed absolute control merely because it was a "violation of British rights and justice." I opposed it because I believed that, by adopting dictatorial methods on a market where we had so little control, we would achieve nothing beyond antagonising our customers. Objections which have nothing whatever to do with the scheme merely obscure its real objective—the elimination of a considerable annual loss to butter producers because of the stupid competition of their respective dairy companies on the local market. A. J. Sinclair. Te Awamutu.

Sir, —I do not doubt that Mr. Sinclair received maliy letters supporting . his scheme to raise the local price of butter by 2d per lb. But did lie receive any from relief workers and other members of the community who are finding it increasingly hard to exist on their present income ? I would remind Mr. Sinclair that the farmer, as a class, has always been the staunchest advocate of the policy of reducing wages. How he can advocate reducing the purchasing power of his customers, and at the same time expect a higher price for his produce, beats me. Two years'ago my household required six pounds of butter a week. Owing to a diminished income, I can now buy only three pounds. If the price goes up I must further reduce the quantity. There are thousands of people in the same position as myself, and the probability is-that the reduced consumption would offset any benefit the farmer might receive from a rise in prices. The country is suffering from over inflation of land values, and tinkering with further inflation, whether exchange, butter, .or anything else, is not going to get us out of our trouble. Even with butter at its present prices, the farmer could still get a living were he not burdened with mortgages, the majority of which will never be paid. The farmer may be having a bad time, but I live in' a farming district, and I hav« never heard of a farmer's children going_ short of food, while my farmer friends still run their cars, and do not seem to miss much in the way of races, shows, etc. Let any farmer inquire from social workers about the destitution in Auckland and other towns and ho will probably come to the conclusion that he is not so badly off after all. Belief Worker,