MARKETING CONTROL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 5 August 1938, Page 7

MARKETING CONTROL

POSITION OF THE DAIRY FARMER MR HULHOLLAND CRITICISED. VIEWS OF THE MEMBER FOR MASTERTON.

Speaking in the Financial Debate in the House of Representatives, the member for Masterton (Mr J. Robertson) criticised an assurance given by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon A. Hamilton) to dairy farmers that “we will restore to you control of your dairy produce,” Mr Robertson went on to observe that Mr Mulholland, Dominion President of the Farmers’ Union, “who evidently was turning that organisation into a political force,” had stated only about twelve months ago that the question before the primary producer today was not whether he would retain control of his own produce, but to whom he would hand over control. That was, said Mr Robertson, . a definite assertion that the priiriary producer did not, and really could not, control his own produce. The Hon W. Lee Martin: “And never did.” Mr Robertson: “And never did, so far as the dairy farmer is concerned, anyhow. To go to the origin of this question of the control of dairy produce, we must go back to the latter years of last century We found the dhen Government taking what certainly was a most important step in the matter of the control of the dairy industry by instituting the compulsory grading of produce I have here the “New Zealand Dairyman” of July 20, 1938, which actually quotes what happened forty years ago to the' day. The question was discussed at the first annual meeting of the Dairy Association, and we find that some very prominent men, such as Mr Harkness, were actually opposing the branding of butter-boxes to show the grade of the butter. The advisability of taking that step was being discussed.” Mr Polson: “Tell us what happened in 1066?” Mr Robertson: “That might interest the honourable gentleman. It would be just about as antiquated as most of his ideas.” The Hon P. Fraser: “He belongs to

that period.” Mr Robertson: “Yes, that is about his period. However, I want to go into history a little, further. In 1908, the control of the dairy industry was advanced another stage by the Liberal Government, with, as Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Dr McNab The political ancestors of the honourable gentlemen now sitting on the. Opposition benches made a political attack on the Hon Dr McNab because he was bringing down dairy regulations which had for their object the ensuring of some degrees of cleanliness in the sheds of dairy farmers, with a view to improving the quality of the product that was being put on the world’s market. Those men opposed it, and worked up a political agitation among the dairy farmers, just as the Opposition party is trying to do today in relation to the guaranteed price. In the election of 1908, the Hon Dr McNab lost his seat as a result of the attack made on the dairying industry regulations. That sort of thing has happened whenever any sort of control over the dairying industry has been instituted, and we still have it from the hon members on the Opposition benches. Like their predecessors, they play on the prejudices of the farmers, and work them up to oppose something that is entirely in their best interests—such as the guaranteed price. “The Leader of the Opposition has made the statement that the dairying industry is still in the slump. The facts and figures supplied by the farmers themselves prove conclusively that that is not so. In 1935, before the Labour Government came into office, the average income of the dairy farmers was £2 a week. It increased to £3 10s in 1936, and, in 1937, notwithstanding the alleged heavy extra costs met by the industry, the average increment increased to £5 15s a week. Surely that fact will be accepted as a definite refutation of any suggestion that the dairy farmer today is in danger because of the Labour Government’s legislation.” The Hon W. Lee Martin: “The figures were supplied by <the farmers themselves.”

Mr Robertson: “Yes, those figures are contained in the returns made by the dairy farmers for the purpose of computing their payments towards the Employment Promotion Fund. The figures come under the heading of income other than salary or wages. As a matter of fact I believe that the dairy farmers’ incomes are actually higher than the average shown because in the returns are included those of people such as county council roadmen, railway porters and others, who keep a few cows as a side line, and supply cream to the factories.”