GUARANTEED PRICE?

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 73, Issue 6282, 16 September 1946, Page 5

GUARANTEED PRICE?

• Sir, —When Mr Nash stated in . 1939 that the Government could not i pay the producer more than the Gov- • ernment received from the sale of produce, he exploded the myth of the guaranteed price. This .was in direct contradiction with official statements made to lure the farmer into acceptance of a guaranteed price no matter what was the selling price overseas. The mythical guaranteed price was the bait offered to induce the producer to hand over his produce to the Government. The insincerity of the original promise is further evidenced by the statements of both Mr Fraser and Mr Nash of August, 1944 that the proceeds of sales of produce would not go to the producer, but would be used for the benefit of the general economy of the people of New Zealand. From the attractive promise that the producer could receive more than the actual selling price the promise has changed to a statement that the producer shall get less than tjie selling price and that part of the producer’s money is to be used for the benefit of the rest of the ! community. This portion will pro- ■ gressively increase whilst the producer’s portion will progressively decrease. But this is not all. Mr Nash sold the farmer’s produce and refrained from accepting the increased payments which Britain made to all other countries. The money was there to be lifted at any i time but he allowed it to accumulate 1 till it amounted to £28,000,000 ster- ! ling or £35,000,000 New Zealand curI rency. These increases were in accori dance with the original agreement ; with the British Government. The i money was the producers’ and was i debited by the British Government I to the purchase of food accounts. ' Then came the masterpiece of political inacuracy unparalleled in our history. Having been paid money for selling something, he boldly declared that he got the money from someone he purchased something fromNotwithstanding the absurdity of any pretended transaction in which the seller of goods to New Zealand would give us the goods and a huge sum as well, Mr Nash was undismayed. His statement must stand out in history as not merely preposterous, but as a magnificent inexactitude. It took our breath away.—l am, etc., WIDE AWAKE