THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, June 10, 1937. FARMERS AND PRICES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23213, 10 June 1937, Page 10

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, June 10, 1937. FARMERS AND PRICES

Speaking recently on the subject of high costs, Mr Semple disdained to strike any apologetic note on the Government's behalf. If the farmers were not satisfied, he said, with what the Government had done for them in the establishment of the guaranteed price, they had their remedy: if they wanted to go back to the stage of gambling with their produce the Government did not mind. The farmers are not showing any disposition to gamble with their produce. But neither are all of them satisfied with the guaranteed price. It may protect them against the risk of receiving slump prices, but it is offset by the increment of costs, which tends to render their labours still unprofitable. And, as the Government is largely responsible for that increase, it is their concern to impress upon it that the responsibility* rests with, it to solve the problem with which they are confronted. Thus the Government is to be faced with a request for the introduction of a compensating price —a matter which was the subject of considerable discussion at this week's conference of the Otago branch of the Farmers' Union. While a remit was adopted in favour of the principle of a compensating price for the farmer, enabling him to pay competitive wages and meet increased costs, and allowing him a remuneration commensurate with the service which he renders to the country, and so forth, there was no unanimity of opinion on the proposal. The farmers want producercontrol, not State control. But it was pointed out, particularly by Mr James Begg, that there is a certain danger in their adherence to the compensating price plan. If the farmers are to have a fixed price for export produce and a compensating payment as well, if they are to be placed in the absolutely assured position which it is claimed they are entitled to occupy, they must lean heavily on the Government. They must, indeed, deliver themselves into its hands. They cannot retain their independence and logically urge their opposition to Stale control while asking so much of State intervention in thenbehalf. In the view expressed by Mr Begg, under the operation of the compensated price plan " there could be only one buyer, the Government, and that would mean Socialism." If that be so. and it is difficult to see any alternative, the farmers in New Zealand are inconsistent in opposing a policy of Socialism and at the same time lending themselves to the advancement of it. According to Mr Mulholland, Dominion president of the Farmers' Union, the Primary Products Marketing Act is doomed to failure because

of political control, and the price of butter and cheese for next season is not to be arrived at by the marketing position, "but is going to be largely influenced by political considerations." So runs the argument against Ministerial control. The reply of the Government to these suggestions is hardly likely to be sympathetic. Its attitude towards the proposal for a compensating price for the farmer, and the effect of the operation of a plan of that kind, must be the subject of many questions to which no attempt has as yet been made to furnish an answer. The Farmers' Union seems to be content in the meantime to concentrate on urging the principle of the plan. The difficulties with which the farmer has to contend because of rising costs demand recognition. The dairy producer's guaranteed return has been proved insufficient. All along the line the farmers are advancing a claim in respect of which the Government cannot disclaim responsibility. The effects of its legislation are returning as a burden upon the community. Apart from the difficulty of any satisfactory calculation of what would be due to the farmer under the compensated price plan, and the effect of its adoption in quickening the " inevitable demand for further inflation" of which Mr Mulholland has spoken, with higher costs of living and demands for still higher wages, a wider question must emerge. Where, once conceded in this direct way, is the application of the principle of compensation to end? If those engaged in one industry are to be entitled to a compensating price why not those engaged in others? Palliatives solve no problems. As Mr Begg has put it, " everybody would like his losses socialised. But you cannot have it both ways. If the losses are to be socialised, then profits also must be socialised."