The Wanganui Chronicle THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1927. THE FARMER AND THE ARBITRATION COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19844, 19 May 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1927. THE FARMER AND THE ARBITRATION COURT

The farming industry makes very few official appearances in the Arbitration Court, but it does not need the discussion which took place at the Farmers’ Union Conference at Levin on Tuesday to enable thoughtful people to realise that there is hardly a decision made by the Court which does not in some way or other hit the farmer. Of course, the farmer is not the only person who is hit. The consumer in general, whether in town or country is almost immediately affected by every rise in wages or intervention in working conditions. These add to the cost of articles produced or distributed, and the cost is invariably “passed on to the customer” in the shape of higher prices, otherwise an increased cost of living.

But the farmer is affected in a double sense. Being a consumer, he is naturally subject to the “passing on” process. And, being a producer, every decision of the Court has the additional effect of adding to his production costs. An. increase, say, in the watersiders’ rate of pay, while it may be perfectly justified from the watersiders’ point of view, puts something on the landing charge and, consequently, the price of fencing wire, machinery, tools, and numerous other articles which the farmer has to use. More than, that, it also adds to the outward transport charge on the wool, meat, dairy produce, and other commodities he produces. He has to pay both ways, inward and outward. His production cost is increased and his margin of profit—in other words, his wages—is decreased. It is not only so in regard to waterside rates. The farmer is dependent on many other trades to supply him with what he needs to work his farm. Carters, carpenters, seamen, railwaymen, shop hands, blacksmiths—one might run nearly the whole gamut of occupations—are all more or less concerned in the construction, transport, or distribution of goods necessary to the farmer, and every improvement in their working conditions and wages, quite legitimate as such improvement may be, means some sort of a “pass on” to the farmer in his capacity of consumer or producer, or both. How absurd, therefore, the argument sometimes heard that the slaughtering and shearing awards are the only ones which bear on him! “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION” The farmer can, with a reasonable amount of accuracy, calculate what his production costs are likely to be, just as a workman can similarly cast up the probable amount of his household expenses. But when it comes to income they are on different ground. Under normal circumstances, the workman knows what his wages will be, because they are fixed. The farmer, whatever the circumstances, has no such knowledge, because his receipts, which are his wages, are dependent upon the fluctuations of the market, usually a market half the world away and with a period of anything from two to four months betwen the farm and the saleroom. And he is frequently paid so long after sale that he has to get an advance in order to keep going.

Thus, the farmer cannot possibly be accurate in a forecast of income. He is in a state of perpetual uncertainty as to this. Sometimes he may strike a rise, sometimes a fall. At the present, he has struck a very heavy fall indeed. Unlike other workers whose calculations inward and outward can be made on a post-war basis, the farmer is faced with the fact that he must pay post-war costs but receive only pre-war prjees, or something very close to them. No industry can be stable or flourishing under such conditions. But, while the general consumer and the farmer, the latter especially, are thus affected by all Arbitration Court awards, neither party has any status in the Court except in a matter directly concerning him. The general consumer, in fact, has no standing at all. The farmer’s status is so little that it amounts to next to nothing. The sheep farmer is directly concerned in a shearing dispute, but the farming industry’s connection with the Court practically ends there. A slaghtering dispute is looked upon as something between the men and the freezing companies. A dairy factory hands’ dispute is regarded as something- between the hands and the dairy companies. If the railwaymen want a rise in wages, it is considered as something between them and the Government. And so on, ad lib. In all cases, it is understood to be a matter between the worker and the immediate employer, and between them only. But indirectly—so little indirectly as to be almost the reverse—the farmer is the employer of them all. Both parties to such disputes have to depend on him for their trade and their employment. He is affected by the outcome in all cases. He is as much concerned in such disputes as anyone. Yet they are settled without the least, reference to him. If he appeared in the Court to put his own case, he would be ruled out as having no standing. In a country depending for its prosperity on its primary products, which could not possibly pay its way unless it were able to export the things the farmer produces, sueh a position is anomalous, to say the least. A MEASURE OF JUSTICE These considerations give point to the desire generally expressed at the conference at Levin above referred to: that the farmers should have some representation in the hearing of cases before the Court The conference was moderate in its expressions and restrained in its demands, as the report of its proceedings showed. By general consent, proposals for the abolition of the Court were not pressed, indeed some.of the delegates, including the president, deprecated the idea. Even in the matter of Court representation, the resolution finally carried was that it should be in cases only when farmers were “directly” interested, although in view of the actual facts it would be difficult to determine where the application of that term begins and where it ends. Other matters in connection with the Arbitration Court which were discussed by the conference were also of prime importance, but that of farmers’ representation was perhaps the most outstanding since it relates to the granting of what is obviously only bare justice. If the farmer who supports the external trade of the country, is not to be allowed to have a voice in matters bearing upon his ability to produce, the only effect will be to make an already embarrassed industry still more so, and that would be neither to the credit nor the advantage of the Dominion.