CONTROL OF FARM PRODUCE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 111, 27 May 1937, Page 8

CONTROL OF FARM PRODUCE

-Prest Aasoclntion.)

Referendum of Producers Desired FARMERS' OPINIONS

(Bt Teleffrapb-

DANNEVIRKE, Tkis Day. oeveral remits dealing witk aspeets of tke guaranteed price legislation were jt-onsidered at tke inter-provincial. coniference of tke Farmers' Union wkick opened at Dannevirke yesterday. Dele1 gates were empkatic in demanding that before the Governnient extends the operation of guaranteed prices to meat, and wool a referendum of producers be takeu. "When the Government- introduced the guaranteed price it was stated that it had a mandate from the producers to do this but he questioned whether this was the truth, said Mr. T. Currie (Wanganui) in moving the following ■remit: "That this eoiiference is opposed to any fuTther interference by the Government in the free sale by farmers of their produce." If the dairy farmers were satisfied with the guaranteed price, well and : good,. but the speaker was definitely of • the opinion that the wool grower would '■ strenuously oppose any interference ' with his produce. It would be a caia- . mity if the Government exercised the . ' jpowers it had under the Primary Proj duce Marketing Act. The Prime I Minister said that it was not proposed to interfere with the wool grower but the speaker felt that while the law enabled the Government to do what the. Prime Minister said it would not do ; there was the risk of trouble. Thej iexisting selling organisation for meatj and wool. was quite satisfactory. ' j MY, W, Morrison (Waverley) second-j ed the motion and expressed the opinion j that the Government would not dare to i interfere with meat and wool. i Mr. A, Ross (Gladstone) considered: that the guaranteed price had been a jbenefit to the dairy farmer and he felt ithat the wool grower would have been only too happy to aceept a guaranteed price if it had been available when wool jslumped a few years ago. "I think we should support this refmit," said Mr. H. Hawthorn (Lower |Hutt). Guaranteed prices were only in itheir infancy but the test of time was jnecessary to prove that the system was (sound or otherwise. It would be foolisk Ito allow the existing legislation to be iextended to meat and wool without Iknowing what the ultimate effect would 'be. . Mr. J. K, Franklyn (Wanganui) de-j nied that wool growers, a few years ago, | j would have been glad to kave accepted! Ja guaranteed price for tkeir clips. Wool j [growers were well able to look af ter , itkemselves witkout going to tke] iGovernment to obtain a guaranteed | •price. It skould not be forgotten tkat; any guaranteed price was paid for by! itke farmer in the end. (Hear, hear.) Farmers should voice -their united pro:test against any interference with their > (produce. Mr. E. E, S. Smith (Mangaweka) said that the union should iusist on cooperative control of our produce. Mr, W. A. Tate (Greytown) agreed ,;that there should not be any interference with the farmer 's produce. Mr. L. Hammond (Hunterville) pro:posed that the - words . "withput first I taking a referendum of all primary pro- ■ ducers," be added to the remit. Farme.rs had to safeguard their future and the iOnly way to do this was to ascertain the 'feelings of the farmer. It may be that farmers would desire a compensating ! price iu lieu oi' a guaranteed price and j -if the resolution was carried in its( present form it would shut the door. against future action. The Primary Producers Marketing Act and the Reserve Bank Act werj complementary and the Government would not be able to pursue its financial policy without control of the produce, ' said Mr. R. Campion (Fordell). The remit in its amended form was then carried unanimously.

Fixed Minimum Price. I Mr. A, L. Elmslie (Waverley) moved ithe following remit:— ' 'That the Government has exceeded {all ideas of what the farmers expected (in taking over the marketing of dairy jproduce and this cqnfereuce considers .that the time has arrived when the 'dairy factory directors should be giveu a free hand, and a straight-out minimum guaranteed price fixed; labour and other costs to be considered when fixing same." Mr. Gregor McGregor • (Waverley) seconded the remit. It appeared to Mr. J. K. Franklyn 'that the remit expressed the opinion that dairy farmers reeeived less thau what they expected under the guaran teed price but it always appeared to tha .speaker that the Hon. Mr. Nash had made it clear that tlie price to be paid would be tne average price over the pasi eight to ten years and nothing more could be paid without caRing upon the taxpayers. The remit was carried.

Dairy Board Bxpenses, "That as th'o Dairy Board is to be used to implement the Government 's guaranteed price, the salaries aud expenses of the board be paid out of the (Jonsolidated Fund and the levy on dairy produce be abolished," was moved for Southern Hawke's Bay by Mr. Thompson (Takapau). Mr. Livingston (Dannevirke) seconded pro forma. "Seeing that the Government has taken control it is only right they should bear the wholo cost," stated Mr. J. Smith (Mangaweka). The remit was lost.

BAD LEGS healed without restiug with Varex. Sirnple to apply. Permanent results. Free booklet t'roiu Varex Ltd., Box 1558E, Wellington. Local iRepreseutative: Knight's Phannacy. 120 Heretaunga Street, Hastings.