The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1939. THE GUARANTEED PRICE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20114, 7 December 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1939. THE GUARANTEED PRICE

In n lengthy reply released yesterday Mr. Nash has issued what purports to be a reply to the criticism of the guaranteed price for the current season. In actual fact, the Minister has virtually, ignored the main points of criticism and cloaks the real issue by striking off at another tangent. It is a matter for comment, in the first place, that on this occasion Mr. Nash sought the good offices of the muchdespised daily press in order to secure the desired publicity for his case, notwithstanding the fact that every night this week the broadcasting' service that is owned by the people has been commandeered by Ministers of the Crown, including himself, for the purposes of political propaganda. This change in method might be due to various causes. Mr. Nash may, perhaps, have realised at last the unfairness of speaking over the air and refusing the other side the right of

reply; he may have felt that his statement did not have sufficient propaganda value to justify the use of all broadcasting stations; or, most likely of all, he has been forced to the conclusion that "Uncle Walter’s radio serial’’ has long since lost its popular appeal and that other methods are necessary in order to reach the public. It goes without saying that his appeal to the press was not made in vain and that his statement was accorded the publicity that is invariably given to Ministerial pronouncements. The greater part of Mr. Nash’s statement was designed, in effect, to show that the dairy farmers were receiving a higher price than during the depression years and that some factories were able to pay out at a higher rate than the guaranteed price. Neither of these points has ever been disputed and neither has any real bearing on the issue. The purpose of the Dairy Produce Marketing Act, according to Mr. Nash, was "to ensure for producers an adequate remuneration for the services rendered by them to the community.” He attempts now to prove that there nas been ‘‘adequate remuneration”.by quoting only the returns and entirely neglecting the costs of production. In effect, where the dairy farmer is concerned, he argues that it is the wages received and not the cost of living that determines the standard of living. How far would Mr. Nash be prepared to carry this argument? Would he, for instance, go before the Arbitration Court and contend that because workers under various awards were receiving higher wages than during the depression it was effrontery on their part to ask for increases to cover the additional costs which they have to meet? The question requires no answer but the mere statement of it exposes the speciousness of Mr. Nash’s arguments when he attempts to reply to the dairy farmers by quoting only their returns and ignoring their costs.

In order to determine what was “adequate remuneration’’ for the dairy farmers the Minister set up an independent tribunal to make a complete investigation. This tribunal found that to give the farmer a

reasonable return last year the guaranteed price should be 10.75 d a pound. That was the award rate fixed by the farmers’ Arbitration Court, but Mr. Nash, as the farmers’ sole employer, did not feel able to pay such high wages so he reduced it to 15.88 d. In the meantime, costs have been shown to have increased by a further .58d. When first asked to make an increase in the payments, Mr. Nash did not dispute the reasonableness of the request, but argued that it would be inflationary to distribute so much additional purchasing power among a large section of the community. Now that a higher price has been received from the British Government he cannot speak of inflation so he contents himself with the argument that the dairy farmers are better olf than in the depression. What he overlooks is that he is paying approximately lid, or nearly 10 per cent, less than the rate determined by his own tribunal. To be consistent, the Minister should allow other employers to say that they cannot afford to pay Arbitration Court wages and to avoid doing so by pointing out that they are already paying more than depression rates. Alternatively, they might use his other ■argument and say that because some employers pay more than the court rate others are entitled to pay less so long as the workers on the average receive more than the minimum. The whole tenor of Mr. Nash’s statement is that the dairy farmer is relatively prosperous although he is receiving a good deal less than- the award wage. The answer is that a prosperous industry is not a declin-

ing one, and the fact which all Mr. Nash’s explanations cannot dispose of isi. -that ever since he took control of the dairying industry it has shown a continuous and progressive decline. Mr. Nash attempts to dismiss last season’s reduced output by an airy reference to the unfavourable seasonal conditions. This may have been a factor, but if seasonal conditions alone are to blame then there cannot have been a favourable season since Mr. Nash took office. In 1935 there were 1,952,000 dairy cows in New Zealand, but each succeeding year has shown a decline, the figure for 1939 being 1,853,000, or a decline of nearly 100,000, so that the bad seasons have not; only reduced the production but have actually killed off dairy stock at the rate of 20,000 a year. This fact assumes greater significance in that in the previous quarter of a century there was only one year in which dairy stock showed a decline. It is time that Mr. Nash stopped trying to reassure himself and others with the complicated arguments and figures of which he is so fond and directed his attention to the simple inescapable facts which prove conclusively that under his mismanagement the dairy industry, one of the mainstays of the economic life of the Dominion, is going back every year.