THE GOVERNMENT’S FIXED PRICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22955, 10 August 1936, Page 7

THE GOVERNMENT’S FIXED PRICE

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— Among its election promises the Labour Government pledged itself to guarantee to the tanner a price for his produce that would ensure to him, to his wife, and his family a standard of comfort commensurate with that of the rest of the community. For months now the dairy farmer has been awaiting the fulfilment of these rosy promises, the statement of the guaranteed price which was to be unfolded to him on August 1. Shock number one came when the dramatic moment arrived and the wonderful news was broken to him — the price was to be 1 9-16 s, f.o.b. In the oft-reiterated promise the price was to be based on “ a generous interpretation ” of the average price over the last eight or ten years. As every observing farmer knew that the average price on London parity over that period was Is 2Jd, and, as he had been assured that the price would be one which would compensate him for any increased costs, could he be blamed for expecting the guaranteed price to be at least Is 3d per lb? The Prime Minister, sensing dissatisfaction, now rushes to assure the dairy farmers that if butter returns 130 s per cwt, the industry—not necessarily the producer—would get what was in it, which would seem to prove that if butter returned only 100 s the industry would find the difference, if not this year then next. After all its rosy promises, and months of “ wait and see ” expectancy, this then is what the Labour Government has to offer the dairy industry—just what is in it—the price allowed to producers being just what the Labour Government sees fit to pay to them, and a sharp increase in costs.

The second shock comes to the dairy farmer with the conviction that he has been doubly deceived. The secret of the guaranteed price, which has been so carefully kept to safeguard him from the unscrupulous speculator and opportunist, now appears to be only a clever scheme to have the door shut before the farmer knew how he had been duped. The commandeered dairy produce became the property of the New Zealand Government on August 1. The farmer was told what he must take for it on August 4 —too late for any protest. He has no recourse whatever. How many farmers know that provision is made in the Bill so that any person who counsels, aids, abets or conspires with any other person against the Act shall be liable to a fine of £2OO in the case of an individual or of £2OOO in the case of a company? To soothe the storm of disappointment the Prime Minister produces another little mystery Lag. Mortgages are to be adjusted to the new price level. Now, who is this big, bad man. the mortgagee, that is to be brought into line? I think I am correct in saying that the biggest mortgagee of farm lands in New Zealan is the State itself. Among farmers of my acquaintance one has a mortgage with the Public Trust, another with the Dunedin Savings Bank, still another with a local friendly society. All these bodies have money invested in farm lands—trust funds, upon which widows are dependent for their livelihood, children for their education. Are we to believe that the Government intends a wholesale writing off of these investments, or is this promise to the farmer just what the guaranteed price has proved to bo —mere bunkum? That will be shock three, and with it will come the complete disillusioning of the dairy farmer. He will realise that the only real concern of the Labour Government is to get possession of the produce and resources of the Dominion. For the producer it cares nothing. If world prices rise once more and recover former levels, the farming community can never hope to benefit from that. The dain' farmer is to be shielded from the evils of higher prices or a possible boom. How many among us have a sense of humour? To the farmer is to be the responsibility of financing and managing the industry; his are to be the losses during bad seasons; his the loss from fire, flood, drought, or stock diseases; his is the privilege of working from dawn till dark on six, and, in the case of the dairy farmer, on seven days a week, but should a prosperous year come that might recompense him for years of drudgery that surplus belongs to the Labour Government. His are to be the crumbs which the Government chooses to allot to him. „ Can anyone assert that 1 9-16 s per lb f.o.b. for butter, with all his costs increased, bring to the average farmer under average conditions, with the assistance of his wife and family given in, a return of 16s per day for a 40hour week and allowance for overtime? Under State control the farmer is entitled to nothing less than that. The Government claims to have acted under a mandate from the people. Any mandate it received was based on some scheme of mystical costless credit which was to allow all, farmers included, to meet their commitments and live beyond the reach of worry. This scheme, which it paraded, but did not explain, on every platform in the Dominion, has vanished to the clouds. With it goes any mandate it claims to have received. Its claimed mandate embraced all farm produce. Meat and wool will inevitably be the next commandeer. Are the farmers going to sit quiescent and allow their birthright to be taken from them, or are they going to remember they are British citizens living in a democratic age and demand a plebiscite of their industry before allowing it to be filched from them?— I am, etc., W. Bradfield. Owaka, August 8.