Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, JULY 17, 1939. THE DAIRY FARMERS’ CHOICE.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 17 July 1939, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age MONDAY, JULY 17, 1939. THE DAIRY FARMERS’ CHOICE.

♦ TN liis intimation to the dairy farmers of the Dominion that it. is open to them to retain or reject the guaranteed system, the Prime Minister is reported 1o have said that: tiie farmers preferred the uncertainties of the. old system to a regulated income and admittedly improved marketing methods introduced by the present Government, he would lose no, sleep in forcing them to accept something they did not want. There are some uncertainties under the guaranteed price svstein, however, which need to be cleared up if its merits aie to be weighed. It is agreed very generally that marketing methods, and some other important details of the organisation of the dairy industry have been improved considerably since the present Government took office. There is a good deal 0 haziness, however, regarding the basis of guaranteed prices and the relationship of these prices to costs. If dairy farmers aie invited to choose between continuing or ending the system.ot guaranted prices, it is evidently desirable that the position should be defined, in the particulars mentioned and others, as clearly as possible. What the dairy farmer wants to know, presumably, is whether it is intended to administer the guaranteed price policy, if it is retained, in such a way as to give him the results he was promised when the policy was promoted. The promises made to dairy farmers were summarised by the Minister of Finance and Marketing (Mr Nash) in his 1937 Budget. In (hat document the Minister observed that the Dairy Industry Commission of 1934 had reported that at least one-half of the dairy farmers engaged in the industry were in varying degree unable, at that time, to meet in full their financial commitments, overseas butter prices having declined, within a period of six years, from 184 s to 66s 6d per cwt. . With this information (the Minister added) the Prime Minister and other members of this Government pledged themselves that, if elected, they would institute a procedure that would give the farmer a guaranteed share of the national income, and would take the responsibility of marketing the produce overSOBS. The purpose and promise were clear. It was to endeavour to find a measure that would give to the working farmer an income measured in price for his product equal, as far as is humanly ascertainable, to the payment for like work in other fields of production. No more—no less—than equal treatment of all workers in town and country. , More recently, as the Dominion President of the Farmers Union (Mr W. W. Mulholland) has pointed out, the Minister of Marketing has specifically included in the relevant factors to be considered in fixing the dairy guaranteed price ‘‘the effect of deficits on the standard of living of the rest of the communitv.” In explaining that he had reduced the piice recommended by the 1938 Advisory Committee, the Ministei said that the committee considered that the financial implications of the price determined upon did not come within the scope of its order of reference. Heavy deficits, he added, “if repeated, must inevitably wreck the whole guaranteed price procedure.” . . • It is contended by the representative dairy industry organisations of the Dominion that the procedure now adopted infixing the guaranteed price is not in accordance with the promises made when the policy was introduced. For instance, in commenting on (he action of the Minister of Marketing in fixing a lower price for the 1938-39 season than that recommended by (he Guaranteed Price Advisory Committee, the executive of the National Dairy Federation staled in its iecent ( annual report: — . , t , , .. . This action has only served to strengthen the industry s belief that the provisions of the Primary Products Marketing Act have gone by the board, and that the prices are fixed, not by the eminently fair and reasonable bases laid down by the Act, but by the dictates of political expediency. The executive goes on to recall that a combined meeting in February last of the Dairy Board and representatives of .the South Island Dairy Association, the Farmers’ Union and the National Dairy Federation was unable to agree to the Minister’s suggestion that the price for the 1939-40 season should be the same as in the preceding season and passed a resolution that the price for the 1939-40 season should be that recommended by the 1938 Advisory Committee, plus all ascertainable increases in cost since' that time. This decision was upheld unanimously at a further combined meeting in March last. The negotiations were reported to the Dairy Board Conference in April, “with a recommendation that the standards ol the 1938 Advisory Committee should be adhered to and the prices recommended by that committee should he regarded as an absolute minimum.” This recommendation was fully endorsed bv the Dairy Board Conference. There, at (he moment, the matter stands. As has already been suggested, it seems desirable, if dairy farmers are to be invited to determine, by vote or otherwise whether the guaranteed price system is to be retained, that they should first of all be told in plain and unambiguous terms exactly what (hey are offered under that system. The root question at stake may be slated simply: Is (he dairy farmer to be guaranteed, as the Minister of Marketing suggested in his 1937 Budget, an income equal to the payment for like work in other fields of production, or is it intended that the Dairy Industry Account henceforth shall be self-liquidating, deficits being the responsibility of the industry itself? POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY. ()N account largely of the extent to which control is divided between the executive and legislative branches of the Government, the direction of the foreign policy ol the United States is almost ludicrously weak and inconclusive. At present the two branches are acutely at variance, although they are virtually of one mind in desiring the maintenance of peace, or. should war occur, the preservation of American neutrality. The current differences between the Administration and a powerful Opposition in Congress relate almost entirely to matters of method, and yet it seems almost hopeless to anticipate any immediate adjustment or settlement ol these dilierences. The urgent appeal by President Koosevelt and his Secretary of State. Mr Cordell Dull, which was reported on Saturday, seems likely 1o be no more effective in clarifying the foreign policy of tin* Republic than much that has gone before.

As Air Cordell Hull has said, however, those who advance Hie view that the embargo on the export of arms to belligerents will keep the United States out of war are thereby misleading the American people and teaching them to rely upon a false and illogical delusion. The great point missed or glossed over by the extreme isolationists in the United States is that there is no question of their country really holding aloof from world affairs. If. for instance, the United Slates cut itselt oil I rom all contact with other nations, the immediate effect would be enormously Io assist and encourage totalitarian aggression, and an ultimate effect might be to undermine American security. Again, in the. struggle between China and Japan, the sympathies of the American people arc overwhelmingly with the victim of aggression, but, drifting helplessly in foreign policy, Ihe United States has done a great deal more to assist Japan than to assist China. Apart from her immensely important general trade with the United States, Japan has no obvious means of obtaining from any alternative source the enormous quantities of oil. metals ami other war materials she imports from that country.

Under its present policy, the United States, should war break out in Europe, would impose a heavy handicap on the European democracies and assist correspondingly the dictatorships which are deliberately intent on destroying all democracy. In the event of war in Europe. Hit' doctrinaire exponents of neutrality in Hie United States no doubt would soon be swept out of the way. Unfortunately, however, there cannot be any doubt that in the present confusion of its foreign policy, tin* United Slates is making world war much more likely than it otherwise would be. If American politicians were not so desperately intent on discovering an infallible recipe for safe neutrality.' the United States could do a great deal to keep itself and other mitiuus as well, out of war.