PRICES FOR BUTTER.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 October 1920, Page 12 (Supplement)

PRICES FOR BUTTER.

THE SUBSIDY PROPOSALS, ■ OPPOSED BY THE FARMERS' UNION.

At last week's meeting o fthe executive of the Taranaki Farmers' Union, Mr Maxwell moved: "The Taranaki Executive of the Farmers' Union is absolutely opposed to the suggestion of the Butter Committee that the consumer should have butter at a price, viz., 2s 3d, less than the market price, viz., 2s Cd, and is particularly opposed to the idea of any difference being made up out of the Consolidated Revenue, considering this is economically unsound and unjust, and should under no circumstances be resorted to. They can see no reason why butter at its present value should be treated differently from coal, boots, or any other commodities; and, further, would point out that the eost of butter, with other articles, is included in assessing the cost of living on which wages are from time to time raised."

i In moving the resolution the speaker said he was entirely opposed to the principle that the difference between the price of an article and the price the consumer desired to pay for it be made up out of the'consolidated revenue. This was entirely wrong in principle, no matter how it affected ihe farmer financially or otherwise, and they should not be a party to it. It would be just as wrong to make up the difference in the extra cost of coal on present prices to the conj sunier, and what he considered he should I pay for it, or to make up the difference between the present price of labor and' iI he price an employee considered he ! should pay. The laborer now wanted 20s a day, and if a man must have that labor he must pay that price for it, and I. for him to say that he was going to call lion the general taxpayer to make up the 'difference between the market, price of butter, cheese, or any other product and the price the consumer considered he should pay for it was preposterous and unjust.

A WRONG IMPRESSION. | Many people were under the impresI siou that the dairy farmers are making j very big profits with 'their present prices, | and Labor distinctly cays: "We want a I share of the spoil." It was up to the j farmers to show there were no spoils, : so far as the dairy farmer was concerned; they must show the general consumer the true position. He suggested months ago (hat it was imperative to procure some authoritative statement as to the average cost of production, and this would demonstrate clearly that j the dairy farmer, at any rate, was not making excessive profits. He had heard it stated in Auckland that the farming community was being unduly favored by the Oovernment, but those statements emanated largely from opponents of the Farmers' Co-op., who had a large business there. They wished to create the impression that farmers wore rolling in wealth, and that the consumers were consequently suH'cring. Such false impression! should be refuted, and fanners should strenuously oppose 'the suggestion to take £OOO.OOO from the consolidated revj cnue in order to give butter to eonsiiffi era at less than its market value. SucJ a proceeding would be generally regard ed as a gift—not to the consumer, I' whom it was really made—but to th 'fhrmer, whom It did not actually beneii. in the slightest, because he could get 2 lOd for his butter over the water. Th sooner they upset this sort of proceduv the better"; it was grossly unfair thai butter should be selected for this treat meiit. Why not include coal, bousing etc? In regard to housing he saw recently ilia"! » five-roomed house in Wellington cost £1750, and a four-roomed cottage £l.}oo. Deduct, say, £2OO ffti the price of land and it was then an extortionate price.

PRE-WAR AKD POST-WAR PRICES. I Where (lid the great difference between i present clay prices and pre-war price? j come in? In labor, very little could bo pm down lor tlie increased royalty on timber etc. True, timber was up to 40s per hundred feet, but t-liat again was due to 'the cost of labor. The sum of £1250 for a four-roomed cottage was absolutely unwarranted; it should not be more than • £450 or £SOO, and labor wns die real ! cause of the present excessive costs. With ] such fad* before them why should dairy I farmers alone be picked out and branded 'as spongers on the consolidated revenue? I The cost of the production of his pro- ' duee had increased, apart from labor, in '■ proportion to others, and lie would here ! say that the present high prices being 'paid for land were not warranted, nor had : the fictitious prices paid any bearing on ■ the market value of produce. That was ■ governed only by the world's markets, quite apart from any other considerations. He had taken out. the figures for over twenty farms and the wages averaged less tlfSli 3d par hour on the net returns obtained. Vet these were the people that were condemned by a set of workers and referred to as people rolling in wealth. Mr. Cleaver was satisfied 'that there was no need for the present excessive price of timber; he was satisfied the sawmillers did not want to produce any more than a certain quantity of timber and bo keep the price up. They could get the labor if they wished to do so. Mr. Maxwell replied that it now cost an extortionate amount to get the trees out of the bush, milled, etc., in addition to increased cost of freights. If millers were doing so well, how was it that the Box Co. was not rolling in wealth? But they were not, and the fact was the industry could not stand the present rate of wages. Mr. Astbury agreed dial Mr. Maxwell's arguments were economically sound when he opposed taking the consolidated revenue to level up or down prices, but he was wrong when he argued that a man who look up hind at the lower valuations and when the price of produce was lower would not be making more money todav.

Mr. Maxwell: Where he had a highlydeveloped herd he would probably be making a substantial income.

A STATKMKXT OPPOSED. Mr. Astbury, eontiminig said that before the Commission some witnesses said that farmers had worked eighteen hours n day. That was not a correct' statement. He (the speaker) was a farmer, and he went to his present farm when land was one-third the value it was today. Produce—butler-fat principally—had since doubled in value, and he must of necessity get double the returns for his produce, with this exception, *uat the cost of production had increase i *l-~ Mr. Maxwell interjected thiu ne /as particular to refer to average land, and not to favored areas. Whenever tliey got into second-class land the costs of production hart gone up correspondingly. (On that clihs of laud were absolute-

Iy dependent on fertilisers. A Government statement had been made to the effect that £4 spent on manures allowed a, profit of 30s at the then price of but-ter-fat, but to-day they had to pay £lO Eor that same manure. AN ANOMALOUS POSITION.

Mr. Astbtiry, continuing, remarked that as a farmer he received only fair wages for his work tlisit a farmer and farm manager was entitled to, yet he could sell his farm ito-morrow at a price and collect from tlie investment of that money a sum that he as a farmer could not afford to pay. There was something radically wrong between,'their positions as farmers and land owners, it did appear to be an anomaly that a man working,a farm with average ability could only earn what he considered fair wages and fair return for the capital invested in stock, land and improvements, yet ho could walk out of that place and colleet far more from somebody else than he could make without doing a tap for it. The whole system of collecting revenue was wrong. The Government must get revenue, and they increased the cost of living in the shape of increased income tnv, freights, taxation of various kinds which falls on the price, of produce and unquestionably had to be paid by the consumer in the end. The speculative element entered largely into this question. Not every man was content to sit on one farm as he had done.

THE SPECULATIVE ELEMENT. Many thought they could nmke far more money speculating than by the hard work of farming, and the average man yielded to that temptation. The result was that a great many farmers to-day not only farm their own land, but speculate as hard as they can with other people's farms.

Mr. Owen: Possibly in a little while they will wish they hail not done soMr. Astlmry: But the man in the city cannot follow out the farming operations. Ho sees the cost of food rising and sees that men, by buying asd selling land, can make perhaps £IO.OOO, and he concludes that something is very rotten. The Press and politicians speak of the farmer as the land-owner; in our education 'the two were not separated as they should be; they should distinguish themselves as farmer and speculators.

In concluding Mr. Astlmry expressed the opinion that the proposal to pay the dill'erence between proposed price of butter for local consumption and the market value out of consolidated revenue was bad in principle, »md if adopted it was not going to be long before various sections of the community, both manufacturing and producing, would dermnd the same treatment.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Orr and carried.—Ha wera Star.