The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1936. GUARANTEED PRICES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 106, 6 May 1936, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1936. GUARANTEED PRICES

NASH claims that the Government’s policy of guaranteed prices was endorsed by the public at the general election. It is true that proposals were put forward prior to and during the election campaign. But it must be remembered that there was not one scheme: there were at least two of them. Mr. Langstone advanced one, and Mr. Nash propounded the other. They differed in essential details. The less revolutionary scheme of the two has been adopted by the Government, and is now advanced by the legislation before the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, it cannot be decided now which of the two schemes (he majority of the farmers who did vote in favour of the Government were prepared to endorse. Further, there were many reasons which prompted the electorate to vote against the late Government, and the only way to register dissent from the National Government’s policy was either to vote for the Democrat or the Labour Parties. The decidedly Left swing was an indication that the vote cast was more of the protest against the National Government than an endorsement of the Labour Party’s proposals. Further still, the Labour Party s programme was an extensive one and it would be impossible to decide at any time which part of the programme was endorsed and which was acquiesced in. Without here going into the merits or demerits of the Government’s proposals for the marketing of dairy produce it must be said that the proposals are new to the farmers; and also that some essential details are as yet undisclosed. This vitally concerns the dairy farmers, for they are being taken over lock, stock and barrel. The scheme does not permit of the exercise of choice. For instance, if the suppliers of each dairy factory were empowered to hold a ballot to decide whether the factory should go in under the Government scheme or not, then the suppliers could make the decision for themselves. But the Government has laid it. down that they shall be all in, so far as the export surplus is concerned, and this decision on the part of the Government is sought to be justified on the ground that the scheme was endorsed at the general election. Under the circumstances it is very desirable indeed that the dairying industry, as such, should not remain silent, because if it does, then the Government will be entitled to claim that silence means consent. It will be much more desirable if the dairy’ farmers express themselves. If there is a majority of the dairy farmers in favour of the Government’s scheme, then the Government is entitled to know it. It will strengthen the Cabinet’s resolve to push forward with its policy, conscious that it is doing something for the dairy farmers which they desire shall be done for them. Conversely, if the Government’s marketing scheme is not acceptable to the industry, then it would be unfair to the Government itself to permit it to go forward under the misbelief that the proposed scheme is wanted by those who are vitally concerned. There may, indeed, be some middle course which the industry would welcome, and if that course is a sound one, then the Government would be wise to adopt it. But how could the Government become aware of the wishes of the industry unless the industry expresses itself? It is very well that the leaders of the dairying industry in this district, Messrs. F. Johnson and T. Alexander, have taken the initiative in the matter and convened a meeting of dairy farmers for the purpose of discussing the marketing scheme proposed by the Government, and it is to be hoped that this meeting will be largely attended, and that the dairy farmers express their views frankly and freely. If they will do this the members of the general public will be the better informed concerning the whole situation.