The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1946. Production

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24898, 11 June 1946, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1946. Production

In the argument between Mr C. Morgan Williams, M.P., and the acting-president of Federated Farmers, Mr W. N. Perry, the confusion is of Mr Williams’s making. He chose to suggest that the fall in butter-fat production noted by the South Island Dairy Association was “ a sign of the prosperity of the “ farmers ’’ and justified himself against mockers by telling them that farmers now are “ not com- “ pelled to milk cows as they did in “ the depression ”. As he says in a statement printed to-day, many of those who had laughed then agreed with him. But if Mr Williams was wrong, it was not because he could say, and they could agree, that hard-pressed farmers who battled for a dairy company’s cheque to help them through the slump no longer need that help and have ceased, to supply. It was because he suggested, intentionally or not, that this has been the only or the main cause of the fall in the Dominion herd and butter-fat figures. If Mr Williams meant to suggest this, he was badly wrong. If he did not, he was exceedingly careless. The production fall that has disturbed farmers and all impartial observers of New Zealand’s industrial trends has teen most disturbing because it occurred during the war, because there were the weightiest reasons why production should be maintained and increased, and because the Government was unavailingly warned to heed the signs of its flagging and redress its policy. Butter-fat production, for example, rose in 1940-41 to the highest figure of the 10 seasons, 1934-35 to 1943-44. The previous peak came .n 1936-37; the lowest figure was that for 1938-39, and it is there, perhaps, that Mr Williams may most plainly trace the tendency he has expounded—and there that he may see it working itself out. The two following seasons recorded the rise to the new and highest peak; in the three next the fall was continuous. It is idle, and misleading, to suggest that “ prosperity ” caused this fall, or was its most significant cause or even a cause of any real significance. Mr Perry, in the statement printed yesterday, summarised its various causes; and most of them were within the Government’s control. But the story of butter-fat is only part of the story. Over-all farm production also peaked in 1940-41; and over-all farm production then fell, in the stages of the official index figures, as follows;

1940- .. ..116 1941- .. ..11l 1942- .. .. 108 1943- .. .. 105

It was not prosperity that caused this sag; it was not the turn-over from billy-can dairying to fat lamb or to anything else that might be fatter. The Government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture notably, ‘ has persisted in the claim that war-time production did not decline but increased. Since the claim is belied by the official statistics, they never quote these. Nor does Mr Williams.