The Daily News MONDAY, JULY 15, 1935. GUARANTEED PRICES.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1935, Page 4

The Daily News

MONDAY, JULY 15, 1935. GUARANTEED PRICES.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH. Currls StreA STRATFORD. Broadway. HAWERA, Hiffh Streat.

It is perfectly obvious that the Labour Party is using the ideal of guaranteed prices for primary products in its quest for support by the farming community, at the approaching general election. In the by-election campaign at Lyttelton, and in his speeches in other parts of the Dominion, the Parliamentary leader of Labour, Mr. M. J. Savage, has offered guaranteed prices as the cure for all the economic sickness from which farmers are suffering. The proposal is an astute political manoeuvre, but careful consideration of the Labour appeal must leave the conviction that it is to quote the well reasoned letter from Mr. A. J. Sinclair, Te Awamutu, published in Saturday’s issue of the Daily News--“merely a vote-catching expedient.” But the unsoundness of the proposal will not remove its efficacy as an expedient unless the electorate is made aware that to attempt to. put such a scheme into operation would do lasting harm to the Dominion in which the farmer will share to the full. When members of the Dairy Control Board met Taranaki dairy farmers at Stratford last week they discussed among other matters the question Of controlling local sales of butter and cheese. Board members warned the industry that to raise unduly the domestic price of those products above export parity might lead to charges of dumping and to retaliatory duties in Great Britain and other oversea markets. If that danger must be guarded against when dealing with but 16 per cent, of the dairy output it can be seen how much graver the peril would be if prices in New Zealand were raised to an ax-tificial level for the whole of the exportable produce. There is room for a good deal more activity on the part of supporters of the Coalition in this regard. Even in the Lyttelton by-election campaign there appears to be no concerted effort other than that of the Coalition candidate and his local supporters to explain the weakness of the “guaranteed price” scheme: It may be considered good electioneering tactics to regard the by-election as of local, concern only, but it is not the view taken by the Labour Party, which, to its credit, backs up the most specious political programme with thorough and continuous organisation. It is quite certain that the Coalition will not receive A favourable reply to a request for another “blank cheque” from the electorate. That is not to say that the trust reposed in the Government at the last election has been betrayed. Many consider that on more than one occasion it has been misapplied, but even the Ministry’s warmest supporters agree that to win the next election the Coalition should submit a practicable, constructive policy and should do so without delay. There seems no reason why active campaigning should await the return of the Prime Minister and Mr. Coates, for many members of the Coalition parties are well aware that there is no time to be lost. In Taranaki the chief appeal of Labour to farmers rests upon the offer of guaranteed prices, and although the proposal was defeated by a large majority at the recent N.D.A. conference, there is no doubt of its attractiveness to many farmers who are still feeling the pinch. Mr. Sinclair in his letter published last week exposed the weaknesses of the Labour suggestion, but the exposure needs reiteration if it is to have the desired effect at the ballot boxes. Much has been said of the “regimentation” of the farming industry under the Government’s mortgage relief legislation and its effect upon individual liberty. But if Labour has its way there will be regimentation of all industry with the officers in control chosen politically. Most, of the N.D.A. delegates were dairy factory directors, and knew more perhaps than the rank and file in the farming community of the factors that would bear upon any politically manufactured guaran-

teed price. There are many farmers inclined to say that support of Labour could not make rural conditions worse than they are, and that a change might possibly give them some relief. It is an attitude that can be understood, but it is an impression that must be removed if the welfare of the Dominion is to be safeguarded. To do so is the urgent duty of supporters of the Coalition, and the sooner the work commences, and the more continuous it is made, the more likely is the exposure to be convincing and effective.