LABOUR POLICY AND FARMERS

Southland Times, Issue 23897, 16 August 1939, Page 6

LABOUR POLICY AND FARMERS

STRONG CRITICISM BY MR DOIDGE

“COMPENSATION AGAINST CONFISCATION”

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, August 15. “What is the Government doing for the farmer today? The Budget indicates no policy or thought whatever for him, save that he should woii harder and produce more, said Mr r. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) in the House this evening. . “When we ask what is the Government’s policy about land there is no answer,” he said. “We know it is a trade union Government and that it has no love for the farmer. If the imperative need at the moment, according to the Budget, was increased primary production where was the Minister of Lands (the Hon. 1. Langstone), asked Mr Doidge. Why was he not in New Zealand to give a lead. They knew that he was Junking about Europe” as a member oi the Government that was “enjoying the spoils of office.” . , . n “I would like to ask what really is the Government’s policy about the guaranteed price,” Mr Doidge continued. “What is its game? In 1935, it gave the farmer a promise that nas never been fulfilled—that the price would be an agreed upon price, and we know that it has never been an agreedupon price.” (Opposition: Hear, hears.”) ATTITUDE TO FARMERS At the last Dairy Board conference the Minister of Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash) had pleaded with the industry to withhold its demand for an increased price this year, saying that it they did so he would do his best to see that the costs were pegged He was! asked what guarantee there was that if the trade unions asked for increased wages they would not get them, and he had not been able to give any guarantee. The Government knew that the farmer was justified in saying that he could not carry on in the face of mounting costs and had started a suggestion of a plebiscite in order to bluff him. To a large’ extent that bluff had succeeded. If the Government would fulfil the promise made in 1935 and again before last election, the farmer would be satisfied. Government members frequently asked: “What is the compensated price?” An answer had been given by Mr Nash himself —compensation for all costs. “The issue between the farmer and the Government is compensation as against confiscation,” said Mr Doidge. “Why should not the farmer have the same return for his services as is given to the waterside worker, or any one of the hundreds of other trade unionists?”