CONTROL OF HIDES

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21035, 10 February 1940, Page 9

CONTROL OF HIDES

GOVERNMENT’S PLANS FARMERS’ UNION OBJECTS DESTROYING TRADE CHANNELS In a letter which has been addressed to the Minister of Marketing, the Hon. W. Nash, the Dominion president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, Mr W. W. Mulholland, stated that on behalf of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union he desired to repeat his strong objection to the principle involved in tne proposed scheme of marketing hides; that was to say that the farmers should be required to subsidise other industries by supplying them with their requirements at lower than a parity market value. “I desire to protest to you most emphatically against the unfairness of compelling farmers to bear the whole burden of this subsidy,” Mr Mulholland stated, “and I would point out to you that the burden is not even equally distributed over the farmers themselves, as the proportion of the value of stock represented by the hide varies with different classes of stock and may generally be said to be much higher in regard to the stock a dairyfarmer has to sell than that which the producer of beef cattle has to sell. Consequently this method of subsidy becomes proportionately a more severe impost upon the dairy farmer than upon the regular beef producer. Return to Farmers “I would further bring to your notice that one of the most urgent problems with which the Government is confronted in New Zealand is that of making available to the farmer a sufficient return for his produce to enable him to pay competitive rates of wages with other industries which is, as you know, at the root of the farm labour problem. This scheme is actually intended to reduce the farmers’ returns. “I wish also to object to the proposal to establish a Government marketing organisation for marketing hides as being a violation of your definite promise that the Government would not control commodities which were 'not purchased by the United Kingdom Government. It is a further violation of your definite statement to a deputation from the Dominion executive of the Farmers' Union on November 2, 1939, when you stated that the war would not be used as an excuse for the extension of Government con-

trol of the marketing of primary products. Promise Unsubstantial? “I hope that the proposal will be very carefully reconsidered before you place me in the position of having to regard the promises of a Cabinet Minister as being unsubstantial. In your telegram you have raised the point of securing the supply of raw materials for local tanners. It is easily possible without any extensive marketing scheme to secure the full requirements of the tanners, and representatives of the Farmers’ Union have offered, with my cognisance, to place the tanners in a better position than they were in normal times. That is to say to give them the first refusal of all hides with the opportunity of picking those that they desire to take. This was a very generous offer as you must realise and would mean some sacrifice to those whom I represent. Unnecessary Expenses “Further, if you are determined that the farmers must supply local requirements ,as below their true value, it is easily possible to do this without any extensive control by simply imposing a levy on hides by which the tanners could be reimbursed the amount which their hides might cost them over and above the price at which it was determined that they should be supplied. This would make entirely unnecessary the expensive and complicated organisation which it has been suggested that you should set up; would enable the ordinary marketing channels to be used without any interruption or dislocation, and particularly to maintain the channels of trade with other countries which it is so essential should be maintained intact for happier days when the war is over. “I would remind you again of your definite promise that the existing channels of distribution with regard to primary products would be maintained in order that they might be in in a position to function when control is abandoned at the conclusion of the war, and would point out to you that the operation of the suggested scheme would inevitably destroy most of those channels of trade and would violate still another of your undertakings. “I hope that before a final decision is arrived at you will give the fullest consideration to the points raised and to others that have been put before you by our representatives from time to time,” concluded Mr Mulholland. “I can assure you that in the attitude which I am presenting to you I have the very strong support of my organisation.”