THE DAIRY ACCOUNT

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20421, 11 February 1938, Page 6

THE DAIRY ACCOUNT

When Mr. Nash gave some figures relating to the Dairy Industry Account for the current year, during the conference at Morrinsville, he explained that if there should be a deficit in the account at the end of the year it would be met by an advance from the Reserve Someone asked if that would always be the case and the Minister replied: “No. I did not say that. The dairy account might have to stand on its own later.” The statement is of interest, because it means that possibly, in the future, a surplus one year might be used to reduce, or wipe off, any deficit of previous trading periods. The deficit in the first year was financed by means of an overdraft, and the same course will be adopted this year, if it should be necessary. But the Minister would not bind himself to a promise that that system would be permanent. If the change were made and the account made to stand on its own base, then it would affect the existing plan vitally. It would mean, in effect, that the guaranteed price plan would really be a stabilisation plan, surpluses in some seasons being set against losses in others. The matter can be discussed when the time arrives, but it would mean an important departure from the original scheme. When he introduced the Marketing Bill Mr. Nash said: “We have affirmed from the start that even if that (the price received overseas) is not enough to meet the price paid out, it is still in the interests of the economy of the country to pay that price to the farmer even if we do not recoup the margin. If there is to be an ultimate loss it is a national loss.” That was the understanding, for there were very definite promises that the producer would receive every fraction of a penny received from the sale of his produce overseas. If there were a loss it would be a national loss. That is very different from a stabilisation plan, where the losses of one season would be set off against the profits of another. It would seem that the Minister regards vital amendments as possible. There was a statement in a speech he broadcast while in Canada which took a different line. Mr. Nash said: “If the product sells for a lower prices than it costs, the responsibility for meeting the loss is with the Government. If the product sells for a higher price then the benefit is to the nation.” It is strange that no questions have been asked about this aspect, for it has not been a feature of the Minister’s speeches here.