MARKETING OF HIDES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 February 1940, Page 3

MARKETING OF HIDES

PROTEST BY FARMERS’ UNION OBJECTIONS TO PRINCIPLE INVOLVED. PROPOSED PURCHASE SCHEME. The following is a copy of a letter which has been addressed to the Minister of Marketing (the Hon W. Nash) by the Dominion President of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, Mr W. W. Mulholland, under date February 7. relative to the marketing of hides: ‘'Further to my telegrams of the 3rd and sth inst, and your telegraphic memo of the 3rd re hides: I have noticed the announcement which you have made in regard to this matter. “On behalf of the New Zealand Farmers' Union I desire to repeat my strong objection to the principle involved in the proposed scheme of marketing hides, that is to say that the farmers should be required to subsidise other industries by supplying them with their requirements at lower than a parity market value. I desire to protest to you most emphatically against the unfairness of compelling farmers to bear the whole burden of this subsidy, and I would point out to you that the burden is not even equally distributed over the farmers themselves as the proportion of the value of stock represented by the hide varies with different classes of stock and may generally be said to be much higher in regard to the stock a dairyfarmer has to sell than that which the producer of beef cattle has to sell. Consequently this method of subsidy becomes proportionately a more severe impost upon the dairyfarmer than upon the regular beef producer. “I would further bring to your notice that one of the most urgent problems with which the Government is confronted in New Zealand is that of making available to the farmer a sufficient return for his produce to enable. him to pay competitive rates of of wages with other industries which is. as you know, at the root of the farm labour problem. This scheme is actually intended to reduce the farmers’ returns.

“I wish also to object to the proposal to establish a Government marketing organisation for marketing hides as being a violation of your definite promise that the Government would not control commodities which were not purchased by the United Kingdom Government. It is a further violation of your definite statement to a deputation from the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union on November 2. 1939, when you stated that the war would not be used as an excuse for the extension of Government, control of the marketing of primary products.

"I hope that the proposal will be very carefully reconsidered before you place me in the position of having to regard the promises of a Cabinet Minister as being unsubstantial. "In your telegram you have raised the point of securing the supply of raw materials for local tanners. It is easily possible without any extensive marketing scheme to secure the full requirements of the tanners, and representatives of the Farmers’ Union have offered, with my cognisance, to place the tanners in a better position than they wore in normal times. That is to say to give them the first refusal of all hides witli the opportunity of picking those that they desire* to take. This was a very generous offer as you must realise and would mean some sacrifice to those whom I represent.

‘■Further, if you are determined that the farmers must supply local requirements at below their true value, it is easily possible to do this without any extensive control by simply imposing a levy on hides by which the tanners could be reimbursed the amount which their hides might cost them over and above the price at which it was determined that they should be supplied. This would make entirely unnecessary the expensive and complicated organisation which it has been suggested that you should set up; would enable the ordinary marketing channels to be used without any interruption or dislocation, and particularly to maintain the channels of trade with other countries which it is so essential should be maintained intact for happier days when the war is over.

"I would remind you again of your definite promise that the existing channels of distribution with regard to primary products would be maintained in order that they might be in a position to function when control is abandoned at the conclusion of the war, and would point out to you that the operation of the suggested scheme would inevitably destroy most of those channels of trade and would violate still another of your undertakings. ‘.’l hope that before a final decision is arrived at you will give the fullest consideration to the points raised and to others that have been put before you by our representatives from time to time. "I can assure you that in the attitude which I am presenting to you 1 have the very .strong support of my organisation.”