DAIRY INDUSTRY HAS NEW PLAN FOR OVERSEAS DISPOSAL OF PRODUCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 118, 23 May 1946, Page 5

DAIRY INDUSTRY HAS NEW PLAN FOR OVERSEAS DISPOSAL OF PRODUCE

FARMER’S RIGHT TO REWARD (P.A.) Auckland, May 22. Details of a new plan of overseas marketins', which has been drawn up by the dairy industry, were given by Mr. A. J. Sinclair, secretary-manager of the Te Awainutu Dairy Company, Ltd., in addressing senior and junior Chambers of Commerce in Auckland.

The industry had never been satisfied, he said, with the present arrangement, whereby the Government compulsorily took possession of the farmers’ produce and dictated the price to be paid, and a new scheme was put forward as an alternative io the guaranteed price.

"In formulating its new plan, the industry has set down as a fundamental principal that the marketing of its produce should be removed entirely from political control, and vested once more in the New Zealand Dairy Board, reconstituted to cope with increased responsibilities,” said Mr. Sinclair. "Determination of the price to be paid to the dairy farmer should be no longer under the sole control of any political party in office, but should be decided by an independent tribunal, consisting of three Government representatives, three from the industry and a Supreme Court judge, as chairman. This tribunal would consider movements in labour, reward of those rendering equal service, and would set out a cost structure covering the farmers’ working and maintenance costs, return on capital invested and labour reward, which would form the basis for fixing a guaranteed minimum price. "While New Zealand continues to operate under conditions other than free exchange, free marketing and free imports, the industry, in selfprotection, must have e guaranteed price adequately related to costs. As this price must be guaranteed by the State, the industry readily concedes that additional Government representation would be necessary on the Dairy Board, but it insists that the board have a majority of producer members, under the chairmanship of a producer member.

"Plan provides for a minimum price below which the farmer must not be paid, irrespective of realisations, and a maximum which must not be exceeded. should the market take an upward trend. It is suggested that the formula unanimously recommended by the 1938 Price Investigation Committee should be the basis, and that the minimum price should be Id a pound of butterfat less than the figure set in that report, plus increases granted to the industry since. This would result in a minmum price slightly less than what the farmer receives to-day. “The industry proposes that the maximum price should not be more

than 2d a pound above the minimum. All realisations up to that figure should be paid ito the Dairy Industry Equalisation Account, and distributed to suppliers through dairy companies at the end of the season. Any balance over the maximum price would be withheld and credited to the State Equalisation Acount, to be available as an offset to debits incurred by the State in maintaining the minimum price. “While the United Kingdom Government continues the present system of bulk purchase, negotiations ~ may be required between the two Governments but the industry should be given a partnership in the negotiations. In the event of the British Government abandoning its scheme of bulk purchase, and dairy produce marketing reverting to its former channels, the industry has a plan for establishing marketing associations throughout the Dominion, vested with statutory powers. “We do not anticipate that the prices during the war will continue for any long period and stability in the industry can be achieved only by increased production. The resilient spirit of the farmer is as strong today as it was in the depression, and the labour shortage promsies to be less acute, but the country must solve for him two vital problems over which he has no control.

‘“Give me fertiliser, the farmer is saying, and I shall .send food to the starving millions in Europe in increasing quantities that will make the coupon-saving scheme look foolish.’ The second problem is that labour is being attracted from the farms by high wages and the 40-hour weeic. Few men who own farms take a serious exception to working 50 or 60 hours a week if they have tangible evidence that they are steadily improving their position in life, but if they cannot get a price that will enable them to pay reasonably competitive wages to farm employees, they are prepared to concede the point made by Mr. Fraser, when he spoke a little disparagingly of prospects for youth in primary industries.

“When the Arbitration Court recently curtailed hours from 44 to 40 with no reduction in wages, the farmer regarded this as equivalent to an increase of 10 per cent. He is asking why his labour reward, a factor which stands in the guaranteed price formula at 11.44 d a pound, should not be similarly increased, because farm wages are automatically increased by 5s weekly for every increase of id a pound in the guaranteed price.”