PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 99, 21 August 1945, Page 3

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

INCREASE DEPENDENT UPON RETURNS MR W. SULLIVAN'S OBSERVATIONS "I have no hesitation in saying that, if tlie. primary producers are given a reasonable increase we will get the increase in declared Mr W. Sullivan (National, Bay of Plenty) ? speaking in the House of Representatives on the Stabilisation Regulations. Mr Sullivan said the Minister of Agriculture appealed to the maize growers to produce additional quantities. The growers in made representations, to the Internal Marketing Department, to the. Minister and to others for ah increase in prices last season. They were not given those increases and consequently this year there was little or no maize, in the Bay of Plenty, The maize growers were making further representations and the department was considering giving the increase, plus- 6d over and above what was asked for last year. Producers could not grow those, commodities unless they got prices that were going to cover their costs and show them something in addition to their outgoings. The sooner Ministers got in touch with and lived closer to, the primary producers, the sooner would they get the result they desired. The Minister of Agriculture had called" out for increased pork and bacon. It was true that there had been a pig subsidy on the crop

system but there should 1)6 an in--9 crease in the. price so far as bacon and pork were concerned. "L appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and to his colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industries and Commerce to view these tilings from the producer's, point of View occasionally" said Mr Sullivan. "The producer cannot go on producing these commodities that are wanted unless he is given an adequate return for his efforts." Mr Sullivan contended that the whole of the cost of making the change-over from butter to cheese and back from efeecse to butter was carried by the producers themselves. The people did not help to cover those extra costs all the increased costs being J paid out of the farmers' own account. When the farmers .signed the stabilisation agreement they expected that tlie Government would make a very serious effort to hold farmers' costs at the level ruling at that he said. ' But increases bad been granted to other sections of the community—he was not saving that they were not entitled to some of those increases—as a result of which tbc farmers' costs had been increased. Was the Government, going to give some consideration to further payment to the producers in respect of commodities that were governed by price control? The farmers were justly entitled ~o an increase to absorb costs tbey had to meet because of increases made by the Court of Arbitration over recent months and if the Government was

going to be Fair and just to the producers it would do something. In some districts farmers were paying as much as £28 to £33 for one hundred fencing posts, and £53 10s a ton for wire. Then the prices for fertilisers transport machinery and ' .-i other commodities required on farms had been increased. Surely, therefore, it was only right that some part of the lump sum payments made by the United Kingdom Government .should be passed over to the producers to give tbem the incentive to produce the goods needed. It. had been stated that when the Prime Minister was in the United Kingdom in 15)111, lie had stated that if the prices of goods sent from the United' Kingdom to New Zealand increased by 10 per cent or more, th'sre would be some justification for New Zealand reviewing the position with a view to seeing whether some increase could be granted in the prices of the commodities New Zealand sent to that country. The prices of Britain's exports increased by M), 70 and 80 per cent, and Mr Sullivan said he believed that some time since 1!)10 the New Zealand Government had had reason to believe that the United Kingdom would compensate this country for the fact that our produce had been

sold, at such a low price. A little later the stabilisation agreement was signed. The farmers signed the agreement on the understanding that costs would be held reasonably firm but since then costs had soar-i ed. Yet when lump sum payments were made the New Zealand Government said tbey did not belong to the farmers, but to the State. Certain sums were, paid into the Stabilisation Account and it was found that the farmers were to get the whole of the subsidies out of their own account. '1 hat was to say, subsidies which previously came out of the Consolidated Fund were now to come out of the. fanners' own stabilisation account. Dealing with the selling of butter on the local did the Government think it was a fair thing? Was there any other indus-

try that was selling its commodities at the pre-war rates and getting no subsidy or consideration. The dairy farmers were selling at a lower price than the export and they were making a contribution to the whole of the people of New Zealand. Manufacturing groups in some cases were getting but that was not the case with the primary producers wbo were making a contribution of upwards of £500,000 to the general consumers, in the country. Farmers were the only people who could build up the sterling assets? and he appealed for better consideration for the farmers, in the future.