DAIRY PRODUCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 109, 9 May 1936, Page 10

DAIRY PRODUCE

STATE'S MARKETING BILL OPINIONS OF WANGANUI DAIRY FARMERS A LARGE MEETING HELD MAJORITY OPPOSES SCHEME REQUEST FOR BALLOT.MADE MINORITY SUPPORTS THE BILL The largest meeting of dairy farmers ever held in Wanganui resulted last night, its purpose being to discuss the Government’s Primary Produce Marketing legislation. " There was an attendance of over 200, despite the fact that the voting strength, as recorded on a number of resolutions, disclosed a total less than that. The meeting supported resolutions: (1) Registering disapproval of the scheme. (2) Asking that a ballot of suppliers be obtained before the scheme is implemented. (3) Urging, if a ballot is refused, that the Legislative Council refer the Bill back to the House of Representatives. (4) Urging that care be taken to safeguard the marketing organisation at present operating in New Zealand. The meeting was by no means unanimous, and it was evident that the resolutions were not acceptable to a section of those present, 49 of whom supported a motion that the Government’s scheme be endorsed. They were in the minority, however, and lost the day. At the outset the meeting was in confusion as to what it wanted. The chairman (Mr. F. Johnson, chairman of the Wangaehu Co-operative Dairy Co.), asked whether those present were prepared to hear Mr. H. C. Jenkins outline the Bill- A vote on the subject resulted in an affirmative reply, but those opposing that he be allowed to speak gained their request that he be heard after the discussion had taken place and it was determined whether or not the meeting was in favour of the Bill. The factories represented were:—

Butter Factories Okoia (annual output 1400 tons). Wangaehu. (750 tons). Raetihi (340 tons). Taihape (700 tons.) ’Total butter output: 3190 tons. Cheese Factories Kai Iwi (150 tons . Westmere (350 tons). Rapanui (150 tons). Total cheese output: 650 tons. The chairman gave a lengthy resume of the deliberations of the recent Dominion conference of dairying interests in Wellington at which the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. W. Lee Martin, and the Minister o’ Finifice, the Hon. Walter Nash, were present for several hours. The chairman said that the Hon. IValter Nash did most of the talking and gave answers to a number of important questions placed before him by the delegates. He reported on the Minister ’s answers to the chief points raised, some of which he considered were vague and indefinite and consequently gave no lead to the conference in its consideration of the legislation. The conference, said the chairman, was informed by the Minister of Finance that the Government would incorporate any of its suggestions in the legislation provided they did not conflict with its principles. The conference passed 14 resolutions but he understood that the legislation had been passed by the House within any amendments. Present Marketing Organisation Mr B. Dawes (chairman of the Westmere Company) said that the chairman had stated the position fairly, perhaps not in the same words as had been used in a report of the conference, but which, as near as he could deteirmine, conveyed the same meaning. One point which the speaker said had not been stressed a great deal and that was the position in respevt to exchange. He was one who had strongly approved of the past Government’s act’un in raising the rate of exchange to 2>5 per cent, and dairy farmers had obtained great benefit thereby. A Voice: Question. Mr Dawes xvanted to know what the position would be if the dairy farmer was not going to get a guaranteed price and the exchange was to come off. “Let u.s be very careful about this thing,” he urged. “There is an old saying that if you think you are getting something for noHilng that i-s tibe time to be very cautious. (Laughter). 1 think we should accept the inevitable and make the best of the thing.” Mr Dawes instanced the moderate resolution carried at, Stratford and moved:— “That seeing that the Primary Products Marketing Bill is admit tedly in the nature of an experiment, this meeting of da:iy farmers respectfully asks the Government to carefully maintain with as little interference as possible the organisation for marketing, etc., already built up within the Dominion. ’ ’ A seconder was forthcoming and immediately Air J # J. O’Rei.ly (Westmere) wa* on his feet with another resolution. It took the meeting some time to determine whether Mr O’Reilly’s resolution was a negative of that moved by M.r Dawee or whether it was entirely separate. It was finally deemed to be separate and Mr O’Reilly proceeded. He took it that the meeting was to protest to the Government on its marketing legislation. Voices: No. 'l’he Chairman: Who told you sot Mr O’Reilly coutended ’lml the dairy farmer was to get a price based on what it cost him to produce. 'l’he dairy farmer was lacking in intelligence if he did not see the advantage the scheme meant to him. He moved: “That this meeting of suppliers compliments the Government on carrying out their pre-election promises to ensure the dairy farmer a commensurate return for his labour

as evidenced by the Pr mary Products Marketing Bill, which has just been passed by the House of Representatives, and believes, in addition, that the aforementioned legislation will bring prosperity to the dairy industry.” Mr Stent (Taihape Company) rose to speak. Mr O’Reilly: Are you seconding my resolution ? Mr Stent: I’ll second it pro forma. Continuing, Mr Stent asked how many in the room were conversant with the Bill? “1 don’t know one clause in it,” he said, “I am in the dark and 1 don’t kmuw if there are any others with me. We should have the Bill here. Aie we children? 1 say no. 1 say the price is not fixed, and if it is the dairy farmers don't know what the price is. 1 say we don’t know what the Bill means and vvu don’t know what we are talking about. The Government, and 1 am nut against it, has treated us like children. Mr O’Reilly says we are at the mercy of the public. 1 say we are at the mercy uf the present Government.” Mr Sten',‘contended that costs would gu up wtist w’th the 40-hour week and higher vsages. The Government hadn’t taken that into consideration. Voices: Hoiw do you know? Mr Stent: 1 know because of Mr Nash’s replies. He said that they would consider that after the season had been gone through. I’ll be dead before next season. (Laughter), Mr O’Reilly: Did you second my resolution? Mr Stent: I seconded it pro forma. Air O’Reilly; Then 1 won’t accept you as a seconder, (Prolonged laughter). Considerable discussion followed, mainly in regard to the motion as moved by Air. O’Reilly. Air. Claud Smith (Brunswick) considered that the best position for the country to be in to deal with the buying public in Britain was to have command of the whole of the produce. He was a sheep farmer also, and was prepared to throw in his lot (wool) to see the country in that position. Air. Stent: Under a commandeer? Air. Smith: We had the commandeer in the old war days and we were glad of it. We would be glad of it again. Air. J. R. Franklin regarded the Bill as rank socialism. The farmers were not going to get a better price, he said. They would be no better off than they were now. The commandeer during the war was a totally different thing and the growers were consulted and agreed to it. It was a war measure; this marketing Bill was not. A Voice: Conditions are worse. Air. Franklin: Higher wages will be open to the working man and he will grab them wherever he can. The farmer has got to take what he is given. Do you think that just ? A Voice: You could always change over. (Laughter).

Mr. Dawes’ Motion Carried 'l’he meeting carried Air. Dawes' motion, but defeated Air. O’Reilly’s by something like 60 to 49. The 49 votes were counted but as it was obvious that the majority lay the other way the count was not taken further. The meeting then heard Air. Jenkins, who gave a lucid explanation of the Bill according to the way he read it. He said that a State monopoly was being set up by the Government- The originator of the scheme was Air. F. Langstone, xvho proposed that the price for dairy produce should be fixed in New Zealand, irrespective of whether that price was realised on export or not. The price paid in New Zealand currency should remain steady and guaranteed by the Government, but that the rate of exchange with sterling should be moved up and down so to permit of the steady price being maintained in New Zealand for the exported products. In other words, instead of the price changing, the value of the money was to fluctuate. The dangers of this scheme from an electioneering point of view were evidently not perceived by the Prime Alinister. Air. Nash, now Alinister of Finance, and a realist in politics, propounded a second scheme, which was, at base, that the Government should assume control of the export trade in dairy produce, fixe a price at the beginning of each production season, and if there happened to be a deficit in any one year, that deficit would go into suspense, but paid for nobody knew how, to be made up in succeeding years. Primary Products Marketing “The preamble to the Primary Products Marketing Bill declares that ‘it is considered essential in the public interest that producers of primary products should, as far as possible, be protected from the effect of floatations in the market prices thereof,’ and it is ‘thought that the most effective and appropriate way of affording such protection, so far as relates to primary products intended for export, is to provide that the Government, on behalf of the Crown, shall acquire the ownership of such products at prices to be fixed and promulgated from time to time’,” said Air. Jenkins. “The whole appeal of the scheme was in the fact that a guaranteed price for butlerfat was promised to the farmer. Now it turns out that there is no such guaranteed price. All that the farmer gets is a fixed price, which price is fixed for no definite period. Jt can be altered from time to time. Tell me, is that the way you run your farms, from time to time?’’ A Voice: Any old time. Three-year Scheme Needed Mr. Jenkins said that it took three years for a calf to come to profit and a three-year scheme was essential for a farmer. He cann.ot plan under three years. He said that the scheme was a complete monopoly. It was the inefficient farmer who was to form the basis of the rate. J f the inefficient dominated an industry that industry would not last. The speaker contended that the efficiency of the scheme, wh:eh would be under bureaucratic control, would be judged by its own administrators, who would not bs the dairy farmers of the country. The meeting then carried the following resolutions, moved by Air. T. Alexander (chairman of the Okoia Dairy Company) and seconded by Mr D. Sutherland: “That this meeting of dairy farmers of Wanganui district expresses its regret that it cannot endorse the scheme incorporated in the Primary Products Marketing Bill because, as yet, the following vital particulars are not forthcoming: (1) The increased cost of factory supplies, such as coal, butter boxes, etc.; (2) the fixed price for dairy products; (3) the approximate cost of overhead expenses in operating the Government’s scheme; (4) the added cost of running the farms after the

- Government’s other proposals have been put into operation; (5) how a deficit is to be financed; (6) to what use any annual surp-us is to be put. “That this meeting of dairy farmers in the Wanganui district requests the Government, before implementing the scheme incorporated in the Primary Products Marketing Bill (which scheme has only just been formulated and therefore cannot be said to have been approved at the General Election), to take a b lltt of dairy farmers throughout ohe Dominion, giving to each supplier a vote to decide; (1) Whether the scheme is acceptable to a three-fourths majority of the suppliers themselves; (2) whether the scheme should be a compulsory or a voluntary one; that is to say, whether each factory should be left to decide whether it shall operate under the Government’s scheme or shall retain its right of individual action in the sale of its product; (3) that in. the event of the Government not agreeing to provide for a ballot, the members of the Legislative Council be urged to refer back to the House of Representatives, the Primary Products Marketing Bill, for that purpose. “That the resolutions 1 and 2 passed at this meeting be forwarded by the chairman to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Legislative Council through Mr. Dickie, M.P., Mr, J. B- Cotterili, M.P., and Mr. O. Wilson. M.P., joint’?, ?jid that copies of the resolutions be handed to the Press for publication.” The first and third resolutions were carried on the vo ces. The second was supported by 58 votes to 47, a section refraining from voting. The chairman made it plain that Mr. Jenkins had attended at the express wish of the conveners, but had himself refused to speak without the approval c-f the meeting. The meeting applauded Mr. Jenkins an J carried a vole of thanks for his address.