DAIRY PRICES

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 44, 15 November 1940, Page 8

DAIRY PRICES

Present Position Seen As Most Unjust BOARD’S REPLY TO PRIME MINISTER Adjustment Said To Be Essential The New Zealand Dairy Board, at its meeting on Wednesday considered the reply of the Prime Minister. Mr. Fraser. to the representations made by the Dominion dairv conference, where a vote of no confidence was passed in lite Minister of Marketing, Mr. Nash. 4.'he board, after stating that the industry was working on a price fixed in 1938. will) the high costs of 1940 because of the war and Government policy, and indicating that dairv-1 armors felt that the present position was most unjust, asked the Prime Minister himself to go thoroughly into the industry s ease. The board indicated that it felt convinced that an impartial studv of the industry would convince anv fair-minded person that an adjustment in the price was essential.

The letter to Mr. Eraser was as lol|(lWs;._"\Ve are sorry that you considered Ute attitude of the eontereiice to the Minister of Marketing discourteous, but feel that you would not have answered our previous letter as vott did had you been fully aware ot the many and protracted efforts which the'dairy industry has made to secure from .Mr. Nash the fulfilment ot promises previously made. Unfoitu(lately, lite attitude taken up by Mr. Nash throughout lias been that he alone had a complete understanding of the situation, and even on minor.matters (such as the small grants suggested to be paid to those farmers (.•hanging over to cheese) lie leas shown an unwillingness to accept the advice of those witose long practical experience entitles their views Io respect. "We fail to see what other action the conference could have taken. the present price was fixed at the start of the 1938-39 dairying season, and even to anyone without detailed knowledge of the dairy industry it must be obvious that there have been considerable cost rises since tliat date, and that ii. accordance with the Primary Products Marketing Act dairy-farmers are entitled to have their price increased. We maintain definitely and in this attitude have the united supjwrt. of the iudustrv, that, in failing to make some adjustment Mr. Nash evaded his responsibilities in terms of the Act. 1 Hither, we would point out that the vote cf no confidence in Mr. Nash was passed after the conference bad heard his explanations of the present situation. Feeling of Injustice. “We can assure you. with a close knowledge of the position in districts right through New Zealand, tliat the dairy industry is today smarting under a feeling of great, injustice, and we ask tliat you. as Prime Minister, should study the position as outlined in this letter, with a view to taking steps to correct tlie present unfortunate position of our industry, which alone is being asked to bear heavier cost burdens while otlibr sections of tlie community have had their costs taken into consideration in the fixing of wages and prices. ii e feel that, aii impartial survey of tlie industry's claims will convince anyone of their reasonableness. "This board has, from the start of the war, done everything it possibly can to encourage greater production, and it is still doing so. When tlie call came for larger quantities of cheese, we made every effort, in co-operation, with the Dairy Division, to see tliat the arrangements made were such time tlie extra cheese would materialize. We have no desire to be wrangling about price under today’s conditions: tliat position was forced on us, but we mailtrain definitely that the industry is being asked to carry a most unjust burden of added costs, and tliat tlie attitude .Mr. Nash has taken tip is such tliat we can get no redress. We tlserefore appeal to you. and in doing so set out as briefly as possible the industry’s

’■fa September, 1938, Mr. Nash himself fixed the present guaranteed price, reducing Hie standards which were unanimously reached by tlie 1938 Guaranteed Prices Advisory Committee, and thus submitting the industry to a reduction in its returns. Tlie Dairy Industry Council, which is comprised of members of tin’s board together witli representatives of all other organizations closely associated with tlie dairy industry, met on September 8. 1939, am) agreed that, in view of tlie war. tlie dispute as to tlie standards should lie dropped, lint asked that increases in costs since tlie price was fixed should be allowed. No increase was allowed. Further Cost Increases. "11l June. 1940. the Dairy industry Council again met and considered the position in tlie light of further cost increases which had taken place. In a letter to Mr. Nash after that meetingthe council set out I lie position as they saw it. and showed that dairy-farmers’ costs had been increased through increased wages granted to different sections of the community. Noliiwithstanding those increased costs, however, tlie council pointed out that because ot I lie war situation they were anxious to avoid asking for an increase in the fixed price they had been receiving for Hie past two years; unii inliliialed willingness to meet represent at i ves of those other sections of tlie community who might lie affected by a policy wliicli sought to arrest further rises in costs ami secure stability. No reply to that letter was ever received from Mr. Nash.

"In July tlie Court of Arbitration awarded a blanket increase in wages which made impossible tlie fulfilment of tlie policy of keeping costs down, which tlie industry had been seeking. Soon after tliiit. at an interview witli certain members ol tin council. Mr. Nash indicated that lie was thinking out a iMiliey for inainlaining ..lability in tlie price of certain articles, ami wlimi it was pointed out to him that the decision of I In- Arbitration Court would seriously affect Hie dairy-far-mers’ costs. Im indicated lie was prepared to lliiuk of some v. ay ol assisting the I’urnier miking £6 a week or less, t Incidentally, we arc >-mplialimilly opposed to Illis suggestion, which would obviously provide a preaiiiim lor liiellieioney. and wliicli is totally opposed to tlie principle underlying tlie guaranteed price.) “Following on this, the Economic Stabilization Conference was held, mid when addressing our conference. Mr. Nash indicated that the Government considered th" report brought down an excellent one. mid thm it intended carrying it i»'"’ l 'lTect i,s f),r ■I. ’ possible. Though delegates pointed out that our industry wits the only one m New Zealand

wliich was being peremptorily stabilized on tile price level of 1935. witli a cost level of 1940, affected by the war and tlie policy followed in New Zealand, Mr. Nash rel’usisi any increase in l lie price, anil in tile opinion of delegates indicated liiat tlie guaranteed price for tlie future was to comprise Rondon parity, witli tlie exception that if there were disastrous price falls overseas, ’tlie dairy-farmer would have to receive a lugger share of Hie national income.'

"Wo submit courteously but definitely Him the basis of Hie guaranteed price scheme as pm *o Hie industry before its inception \ Him Hie price was to cover ail costs in New Zealand, mid Him in el'feel it was to lie a ‘New Zealand’s price. We ask that you its Prime Minister consider Hie relevant filets as set out here, and having done tlial. that you make available io tlie industry that measure of justice wliicli was originally promised to us. ami wliicli up I ill tlie present we have been denied."