THE FARMERS’ BURDENS.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1922, Page 8

THE FARMERS’ BURDENS.

COST OF PRODUCTION. MUST COME DOWN. Wellington, July 25. In his address to the annual conference of the Farmers’ Union to-day, the president (Mr. W. J. Polson) referred to the cost of production. While the Farmers’ Union in common with most other responsible organisations. he said, has never ceased to urge upon the responsible authorities a phase of the question which is of more importance in my opinion than any other, the necessity for a reduction in the cost of production and distribution, no whole-hearted attempt has been made by Parliament to afford relief in this much needed direction. It must be patent to all that while it costa the producer 3d to manufacture and export to his market against in the prewar period, he is handicapped to the extent of Ud per lb. As a matter of fact, a 601 b. carcase of mutton costs 9s more to freeze and market than it did before the war, and a box of butter 12s lOd more to manufacture and market. These figures mean all the difference between substantial profit and heavy loss to producers. The wonder is that with such charges ruling it has been possible for him to carry on at all. Only phenomenally high prices at the other end of the world have made it possible. Will these prices continue? There must, of course, be considerable fluctuation, and the position cannot possibly be a sound one from the producers’ point of view until costs of production are brought within reasonable limits. In order to arrive at such a position some of the anomalies in our existing labor laws must be removed. I refer more particularly to preference to unionists, which is responsible for the major proportion of these high charges. It is a system by which a combination of individuals in any trade or industry is enabled to keep out others who are anxious to participate in the advantages of that trade or industry, thus creating a set of artificial circumstances and maintaining a rate of pay out of proportion to the emoluments of the rest, of the community to the detriment of the rest of the community, including the workers themselves, and to the curtailment of the spending power of the producers, and consequently the community at large. This combination, which trades unionism in this country attaches importance to, but is not real unionism at all. must be remodelled. Unionism which is co-operative and for the benefit of all, and which embraces all, is of course above reproach, but a form of unionism which excludes some to benefit others, which in fact practises combination instead of cooperation, must be the subject of reproach. It is time the Farmers’ Union, representing as it does so large a section of the farming community, took a definite z.tand in regard to this important question. The Prime Minister of South 1 Australia in a recent speech has gone to far as to assert that “it is as economically unsound to my mind to fix artificially and arbitrarily the price of labor as it is to fix the price of bread, meat or any other commodity.'’ The answer to that, of course, is that the main object of arbitration is to prevent . artificiality and arbitrariness, but tire Premier of South Australia has a fur- ' Lher rejoinder to make. He indicates the Courts of Arbitration as failing in their object and as standing “in the . way of adjustment which otherwise ■ would come about automatically.” 1 confess to a feeling that the whole principle upon which our Arbitration system ’ is based has yet to stand the test, and ► to more than a suspicion that it will ’ fail in that test. , The Farmers’ Union, composed as it » L= largely of men who have themselves ' risen from the ranks of labor, has much » greater sympathy with labor than labor ► itself generally supposes, but wc can- ’ not blind ourselves to the imperfection ► which exists in regard to the relations ’ of labor with the rest of the commun- , ity. We earnestly hope a remedy will ► be found—some via media that will be ’ satisfactory to both sides. So far it ► is not in sight.