THE GUARANTEED PRICE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22511, 20 September 1938, Page 13

THE GUARANTEED PRICE

j . t ;- { w tkb uitq» or tb* niH. jgir,—Permit me to comment on an Sggfour statement m»de by Mf W; SSH?' whw» addressing tha annual ■TJSMLS? the Employers' Association ££™rbury, »» published, in "The ;. gS£ «« Thursday. September.. IS, T StfLSS"!?* of condemning the pre** J SNHW'tottan. he w^nt o». a nd made '3 STS* 1 ? 59 ?? 41 On* thing stands out C jSJLS > &. ?Mtter marketing scheme in £ sSrr5 aland - ° f all the boasted and % SHE?** of the Government in f SSSf?- n°t one shilling has been !' JJeS 1 t° the price of butter-fat. The *.- v2B? r «*urned to the dairy tanner is % SSfcjyhat the market ha» 'J sl2**?.' . Thw should be used and 2 2X&, *•*£ *e *»«. °« those who * t2fif&* n P ri vate enterprise with having V ifcLJ 8 , v i vidl y apparent that Mr i- SS}^ s knowledge is limited on the 93 SEK? n * Vfuxtm of - the Labour 3 *2? ri,,, £ n *,* n respect to primary pro* * *S2'- £* b3S , s » ted that the dairy < 222*5 "as, on i2 received what the zS don . mßrket P»s: yielded:' At the i 2? °/ the first season of the "guarifjftJßfce" July 81.-'iW7; a deficit f 2L** 38 * 780 st ood to the Dairy lndus- » S^ c S ount at the Reserve Bank. The " 2*2? i. frfmers in New Zealand dur- '■' «2 2"? J W**f season were assisted to ~„< 2?.f*!f N t °f £338,750. Under the new :,'* 2 w 5 et WS procedure the agents acting TSK22 d « un 4 er instructions from ■- SELi 8 !^? 50 " 8 Department here—only V.'£*£.*"- »PP r cent, commission alone <pi i^»' work they do. The -amount ■"- «iIG?iJ2P der this new system »S about = fi vJuLj*?***- Thß interest saved - the necessary finance from ', ■ S9SPfS *n*HS*'ry *• J< saving of ? eSTJrIR: 00 ?- Tbl * system a«owed ?SS *° SP»« within ftrnearer LOW to this country. Altogether 255,7**** U* new Primary Products wH. ttn i l L_ Department's - procedure ■.-?MJ»Yttfthe dairy industry in JBW-fr : J ffißS lfnat,, y f MW.7W- - Those of have Studied uui l markpfini?

systems over a period of years recognise and admit that the procedure now being followed has regulated as far as humanly stability for the producer. This procedure has cut down to the minimum waste and speculation, which has always existed between producer, and consumer. These facts themselves stand out without any boasted, vaunted glorification on behalf of the Government. I do not wish to fling anything in the face of any person, but I would urge Mr Machin to undertake to ascertain a little knowledge on these subjects before publicly making a speech. --Yours, etc., ' JOHN JOHNSTON. September 19, 1938.

to ts* norroa or tn (*»i. "'".- Sir,—The Advisory Committee'which investigated the whole position of the dairy industry recommended certain proposals to the Government, to be embodied in the price to be<paid for the season's output of dairy products. The proposals submitted were the unanimous decision of the committee, including the nominees of the Government. I da not know if any dairy farmer was personally on the committee, but I think it must be considered a fair tribunal, The remuneration fixed was £4 10s a week of seven days, and for/ each labour unit they fixed the butter-fat returns at 3.7501b (I believe the unit at 5.7501b was very high), and the butter-fat a cow was estimated at 2401b. Mr Nash said in reply that the Government did not, agree with these figures, and fixed the labour unit at 6.0001b fat and the average at 2501b fat a cow. Yet the average tat a cow is 234. -■••'" • The Government agrees with an average wage of £4 10s but with the increased averages, while the service of the lorry driver who picks up the cream U worth £5 for.five days' work. And the men recently appointed instructors will cost. the dairy farmers £lO a week. It appears to me that those engaged to be paid out of the •farmers' products receive much more consideration than those engaged in the production of the commodity. 1 notice it is hoi worked out in such minute decimals.

, The committee, in its judgment, was also justified in pointing out that the deficiency would probably amount to £2,300,000. If I understand the statement of the Minister, it would not be any trouble to them to readjust the difference in the pay-out to the dairy farmer end the selling price to the consumer.

If there had not been any guaranteet! price last season the dairy farmer would have received 2d per lb more for his butter-fat. The price at which it was sold on the local market was less than the export value. The farmers are unanimous that they have not received a fair deal, and I am confident that their feeling will be expressed in the ballot box in the coming election,—Yours, etc., DAIRY FARMER. September 19, 1938.