THE DAIRY FARMER’S LOT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 240, 11 October 1938, Page 8

THE DAIRY FARMER’S LOT

BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE GUARANTEED PRICE FIGURES BACK TO 1916-17 REVIEW BY MR. E. B. GORDON Speaking at Hunterville last night Mr. E. B. Gordon, National candidate for the Rangitikei electorate, stated that Mr. Savage and Labour Party members were parading the country and saying that dairy farmers were never better off than they were to-day under guaranteed prices. “What was the real truth?” Mr. Gordon asked. “The dairy farmers have never been worse off than they are to-day, except in the slump years. I produce here the returns of dairy produce from one * of the Rangitikei factories, which show that from 1916 to 1930 the price dairy farmers received was far in excess of the present so-called guaranteed price:— s. d. 1916- 1 8.1 1917- 1 7.25 1918- 1 8.75 1919- 1 9 1920- 2 8 1921- 1 5 1922- 1 71 1923- 1 71 1924- 1 6 1925- 1 5.85 1926- 1 4i 1927- 1 5.34 1928- 1 6.6 1929- 1 4.25 1930- 1 0.30 1931- 0 11.18 1932- 0 9.35 1933- 0 8.766 1934- 0 10.362 1935- 1 0.108 Guaranteed Price. 1936- 1 1.630 ’1937-38 1 2.965 1938-39 . 1 3.88 (*Net return was Is 3 l-Bd. Directors estimate this would have been Is 5d if marketed by farmers). “You have to remember, he continued, “that from 1916 to 1936 farmers’ costs were ever so much lower than they are to-day. There was no 8d in the £1 wage-tax; wire was £8 a ton cheaper and implements and utensils were also much below to-day’s cost.

“On Mr. Nash’s figures the dairy farmers would have been at least £600,000 better off if they had never seen the guaranteed price. The loss the first year was £272,000, extra costs in marketing accounting for £lOO,OOO of that. Mr. Nash, in fixing the price for the second year, estimated that

there would be a loss of £2,000,000 and led the dairy farmers to believe they were going to get something above market value. What are the facts again ? The season’s produce is not all sold yet and there is a surplus ol £1,500,000. So that Mr. Nash was only £3,500,000 out in his estimate so far. “Mr. Nash was asked at Kimbolton how it was, when he broke the principle of the guaranteed price by giving the dairy farmers £BOO,OOO of his own money, he did not give him all the balance—£600,000.

The reply was ‘because it would give the dairy farmer more than his share of the national income and give him a higher standard of living tnar. other sections of the community rendering the same service.’ “I maintain the dairy farmer earns every penny he produces. What other section of the community works 60 Lo 70 hours a week in all weather for such a small return? Does Mr. Nasn mean that if butter rises on the London market to Is 6d or Is 8d the dairy farmer has to be content with Is 3.88 d or the equivalent in butter —Is 4id? 1 maintain the dairy farmer is entitled to the full reward of his labours, that is, the whole price of his produce, not a part. “The National Party will hand back the dairy produce to the dairy farmer. As regards the marketing the present marketing system will be maintained. It is the Dairy Board’s original scheme and not the Labour Government's scheme at all. Mr. Nash has boldly asserted that it is his scheme, but the dairy industry is entirely responsible for the scheme, which was endorsed by the industry in 1935 on the occasion of the visit to New Zealand of the Dairy Board’s London representative (Mr. Fraser) to New Zealand.”

TOWN lI’LL WAS FULL

’VOTE OF CONFIDENCE The Town Hall at Hun—rville was full last night when Mr. Gordon addressed the electors in that centre. There was a Labour section at the back, and one man kept heckling all through and there were interjections from time to time from others. Mr. Gordon dealt with interjections very well indeed. Mr. W. Campbell Smith moved a vote of thanks to the speaker, confidence in him to represent Rangitikei in the House and confidence in the National Party. This was seconded by a woman elector and carried.