DAIRY OUTPUT FIGURES DISPUTED

Chronicle (Levin), 29 June 1946, Page 5

DAIRY OUTPUT FIGURES DISPUTED

-Press Association

Mr. A. J. Slnclair Debates With Mr, Walsh

Bv Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, June 28. Disagreement . with cert.ain of the contentions of Mr. F. P. Walsh in his address to the National Dairy Federation yesterday led to a debate between him and Mr. A. J. Sinclair, of Te Awamutu. Statistics of butterfat pro- - duction per cow guoted by Mr. Walsh were so unfavourably received that he i consented to allow them to he ch&llenged by a conference speaker on con-" dition that he was allowed the right of reply. '

The Dairy Board and the Dairy Industry Council would later malce a considered reply to some of Mr. Walsh 's statements, said Mr. Sinclair. He .spoke merely a's'a. conference delegate and voiced his own opinipus. • Mr. Walsh, he said, deserved every tribute for mucli of the material he had given the conference, but liis exliortations for increased production were directed to the wrong audience. The dairy farmers of New Zealand had produced foodstufts to the value of £150,000,0.00 sterling in six years, despite many difficulties. But they ealled for lower costs, not liigher priees. The Government eould iix prices, but it eould not control costs, and rising costs hampered production. The figures of production per cow given by Mr. Walsh were incorrect. He had given "production at the paiF ' and that was not regarded seriousiy by^ the mdustry. A revision of his astrov nomical fgures on Dairy Board statis-

tics showed production per eow in pounds of butterfat to be 2321b. for 1940-41, 2161b. for 1941-42,. 2Q71b. for 1942-43, 2051b. for 1943-44, 2241b. for 1944-45, and, because of drought con-. ditions, a lower fgure for 1945-46. Mr. Walsh had elaimed that the guaranteed price was alniost solelv respousihle for the- iniproved eonditions of tlie- dairy farmer, . Tliat was wrong. The real reason was the liigher price — paid by Britain, from 81s per cwt sterling in 1935-36 to 150s 6d stcrling in later years. 'The Stabilisation Conimission had asked dairy farmers to stay on a low price in a period of rising costs. They were paying tlieir own sulisidies, and were standing on tlieir own feet, difCerently from otlier sections of tlie conimunity. "In spite of many Jlne tliings Mr. Walsh said to us today, " continued Mr. iSinclair, "he should have gone elsewhere to stress the need for increased production. A Huntly bus broke ,down one day receutly. Next day the miners stopped home as a protest. "We donft need to be talked to about increased production. The dairy farmer will do his bit. We would sooner have low costs tlian liigh prices, but if a standard of living is to be artifcially bolstered up in New Zealand, then the dairy farmer has thej iigHt to cover his costs and to receive'v the standard of living which he was pledged by the Government." . Statistics Defended. The dairy industry was not meeting 1 all the subsidies it received, said Mr. j Walsh -in reply. In the last season it | had received £1,000,000 from the con-'. solidated accounts, and prior to stabi- i lisation it had received £2,000,000 from the same souree. He had not intended to misleacl the conference. His statements were the result of his analysis of. eonditions applicable to the industry. "I am often told tliat figures I quote are wrong, " .lie said. "But I deal with figures aceepted by tlie law of the land, and tlie production returns I quoted were official statistics. M^. Sinclair dealt with only one set of figures in the guaranteed price stvucture. -"Last year Mr. W. Marshall advised this confereiice to be careful in regard t b reopening diseussion on tlie guaranteed price formula. I know tliat I am getting'a bqtter. return for my pig meat than I did "in 193S. Let the •industry deci-de, if it thinks the f omuia > is wrong, to go to the Govprnment and hsk for its revision. I. am prepared to assist vou to secure that.

"Mr. Sinclair as questioned my right to urge increased production. Your chairman, however, said the same to you yesterday. I recently issued a report to the Federation of Labour and stressed the same point. Although it was not favoured by a faiv seetion of the Labour movement, an overwhelnving majority of workers has endorsed thqt policy. It is tlieir duty, and they realise it, to produce more to maintain the standard of living. ' ' The 40-hour week had been attacked, said Mr. Walsh, but the president of the National Party had -said no interferencft. would be made with the hpurs of labour if liis party became tlie Jrovemment. The Prime Minister had said that the 40-hour week was not sacred. Owing to shortage of female labqur, however, there were offers of a 30-hour week to attract staff to certain indnstries. That would be no beneht while goods and servicps were in such shorf supply. If stocks had acenmulated a reduction in hours was justiiied, but that was not so at present. . .. "It depends entirely on ourselves as to the eonditions we iVill enjoy, " said Mr. Walsh. "But remember that other sections of the conimunity Jiave a case to answer. • There is nothing. to prevent critics from working on the waterfr.ont or in the mines. The time ahead of New'Zealand, liowetrer,Hs not' an easy one, We have internal diffieulties bpcause of surplus money, and it will be harmful to New Zealsand if there is a clamour for increased prices in the coming year. Tlie net tesult will be to ipcrease costs 'on tlie farip. and create greater diffieulties. The greatest enemies to -; New Zealand- today are those inxury industries which are breaking stabilisation by paying wages greater tliap those allowed by law. They are. drawing labour away from essentiaj. industVies and producingluxury goods we do not. require. ' Both Mr. Walsh .and Mr. Sinclair were accorded a vpte of thanks. I