AN UNJUST PROPOSAL

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 21, 20 October 1942, Page 4

AN UNJUST PROPOSAL

In the discussion of the increased price to be paid for wool this season there is fortunately a basic agreement, namely, that the money belongs to the woolgrowers. What the Government proposes to do is (1) to withhold indefinitely a substantial portion of the increase, and (2) stabilize the domestic price of wool at the expense of the producers. The grounds advanced for the retention, which would constitute, a compulsory loan from one section of the community while' all others escape, is that payment in full would expose the Dominion to the risk of inflation. This is based on a contention that the extra money would be available as increased purchasing power at a time when there was no balancing factor in the form of consumable goods. This contention may be open to question, but what is beyond question is the fact that the Government did not display the same concern for checking the inflationary trend when letting loose a flood of increased spending power by way of wage increases by general order. ( _ • r i • The position of many sheep-farmers, with wool prices fixed since 1940 but costs of all descriptions free to advance, is extremely difficult. And the proposal to retain a portion of the purchase, money will hit hardest those who are least able to bear it. They are the men farming back and hill country with little or no facilities for fattening stock. They must depend almost entirely on their wool cheque and what return they can get from surplus ewes. It was to help them that the increases in meat prices, plus the increases in the value of pelts, were put into a special account in order to maintain the price of ewe mutton. The Minister of Marketing explained at the time that this was done so as “not to entail any. undue hardship on that section of the industry which had a major interest in the production of ewe mutton.” It is now proposed to withhold from this same section a part of their wool cheque, and there could hardly be a more effective way of entailing undue hardship than that. It is of interest to note the difference in the attitude of the Australian Government and that adopted here. Mr. Curtin said that the increased price for wool this year—it will mean an additional income of from £6, 000,000 to £10,000,000 in the Commonwealth—would, “besides immeasurably benefiting woolgrowers . . . assist the whole Australian economy.” Here, with the estimated added income about £2,250,000, it is regarded as a threat to the economic position, and it is strange that the conclusion is reached that payments though possibly four times as great will be a boon to Australia and the much smaller sum constitute a menace here. But the really vital issue, the thing that matters most, is that a large section of hard-working men, facing a shortage of labour, increased costs, and losses of stock due to climatic conditions should not be deprived of an increased price given by the British Government for their wool. There is no need for political aspects to intrude. This is an economic matter involving the right of the producer to the market value of his produce. If those in authority believe that pait of any net income of these men should be retained, then that cannot in justice be done until the same system is. applied to the earnings of all sections of the community. To apply it only to one—on whatever basis—would be manifestly unjust.